The Trainz Newsletter

I finally got around to calling and the owner is out of town until next week. So.....

Scott Smith

well when ever you post a pics or video on this site its on google.com..there nothing privet anymore..welcome to the world of internet..

If you have read what Chris (cbojanower) was actually talking about, it's not about privacy.  It's about making sure to extend courtesy and either ask permission, or credit to, the individual that took the picture if you are going to use it, especially when it's business-related.

Like I alluded to in an earlier post, automobiles in a parking lot are in plain view of the public, like pictures taken by others on the Internet are in plain view of the public.  In the case of the automobiles, should anyone be allowed to borrow someone's car without asking permission simply because it's there?

If Trainz pays any attention to this Forum, you would think that they might have responded by now.  If they don't look at the Forum, it would be rather surprising being that they are on the Internet selling trains.  Just an opinion.

Art

I know that the theme of this thread has been the use without permission of Scott's photos of his layout.

What I find funny is the mislabeling of the trains on their "Top 5 Trains" list.  Number five is correct as described.  But number four is not the Lionel Virginian Berkshire, but an MTH Pennsylvania Q2 Duplex, and number three is not the MTH Premier Erie Triplex, but the previously mentioned Lionel Virginian Berkshire.  I'd like to know what number two and one are, to see if the Duplex is one of them, and whether at least one other item, besides number five, is correct.

Stuart

Art, as I mentioned in another post, there are not many employees of Trainz. They have nine or ten full time employees. I do not think that that they monitor what is on this forum. They just do not have the free time that we do. I bet that they are trimmed to bare minimum expenses to make a profitable business. Besides, beyond this thread…what a waste of time it would be for them. 

Rick

There is a big difference between viewing and using. If Scott really wanted to push the issue he could probably win under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) All he really seems interested in is for Trainz to extend common courtesy and ask first and have the option to say no.

Like I said earlier Getty images lost a huge lawsuit a few weeks ago for using someone elses images that they lifted from his postings of the Haiti earthquake. The law is on the creator (photographers) side on this one.

Getty loses 1.2 Million

Here is another photographer that got 1.6 million from a supplement firm that was displaying his images on their website and in  literature. Had he registered the images with the US Copyright office he would have got more

Remember, look but do not touch

I am not a lawyer so obviously I have no factual information about the legalities of this type of issue.  As someone already mentioned viewing someone's work is quite different than using their work for marketing purposes without that person's permission.  It just doesn't seem very ethical to me.  And it makes no difference if, as per Rick's point , they are operating with a small staff and bare bones.  That should not preclude a simple gesture of asking permission from the owner.  Other companies seem to be able to operate that way and still be successful. 

I hope this is just a simple mistake by someone on staff and this is not the way they normally use someone else's work.  

Ed

I think this entire conversation should have been between the OP and the business that used the pic. Soliciting advice is one thing. The details could have remained anonymous as direction or options were discussed.

But...I find public shaming more than a bit uncivilized - and even less considerate of a forum sponsor - that helps to support the very space being used to nail their hands to the table. For all that is known - that pic may have been inadvertently cataloged with pics in which permissions were obtained - yet here are almost two pages of clobbering.

Hopefully, someone will put the brakes on this runaway train.

I agree.  I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who post complaints about businesses on this Forum without first having discussed the matter personally with the business. 

Scott, you have been a long time and valuable contributor to this Forum and I have always enjoyed reading your posts.  What would your thoughts be if one of your telecom customers posted a complaint about something you did on a public forum without first having showed you the courtesy of a private discussion?

Curt

Well said Mark. I would be whole heartily on the legality side of this argument if Scott Smith was a photographer whose business was to sell his photos. This is not the case in this incidence. Ed, my point in the number of employees was in response to Chugman's suggestion that Trainz should be moderating this forum. I just do not believe that they have the time or the motivation. Let's hope they don't, as sponsor dollars might be pulled. We more and more seem to get to a ****ing contest on almost very post these days. Somewhere in the last few years this forum seems to have taken on a different life. I must say, the more I get on these days the less I enjoy. Gentlemen, enjoy your day and anymore posts in this thread….this will be my last.

Rick

This is a good example of 'legal issues' that we can all be confronted with anytime.

For 14 years now I've had a membership in a national firm that will answer questions like this with a phone call easily. $20 month.

check out    http://csamh.legalshieldassociate.com/

Hey folks.  The final outcome of all of this was that a well-intentioned marketing person made a mistake.  He was trying to be helpful and educational.  He used Scott's photo because it looked cool, and it simply didn't cross his mind that he might be offending anyone or crossing some copyright lines.  He has apologized for his mistake, and I'm sure that is one mistake he won't make again.  Nothing more or less.

Gotta love the passion for trains on the forum!  :-)

Did you fix your TOS?

Hi.  Just to close the loop on this topic.  I was able to consult a copyright lawyer who essentially said the current DASH language about submitted content was pretty much how it had to be. There are simply too many exposures for us (and any site that enables upload of user-generated content) without this language.

I got a nice call this afternoon from Scott Smith too. He is the guy that we inadvertently slighted with our use of one of his photos. We've long since made up (and in fact can now joke about this), and I assure you we will try not to cross anyone else in a similar manner. Should we ever want to use a user-submitted photo or other content, we will do our best to contact the user for permission and possibly attribution.  We have no intention to sell anyone's photos either.  Just wanted to be clear that we really don't have any intentions behind the uploaded content other than to help make the hobby easier and more fun.  

A couple of points:

If you have photos you may want to upload to DASH and can't abide by the TOS, please don't upload them.

If you upload photos to your My Collection area, you can mark your Collection Showcase as private.  No one else will see your collection or the photos uploaded in this section of the site.

We hope you will use DASH even if you don't upload any photos.

quote:

The details could have remained anonymous as direction or options were discussed.

IMHO, posting the details provided a public service by educating people about the possibility of their pictures being used. Yes, the TOS covers this, but few read them.

Folks who don't mind will continue to use the site, others may elect not to.

We all decide for ourselves

Didn't SCOTT mention in previous threads that he posted his Personal Collection with pictures on this Dash site for the entire PUBLIC to see?  And his biggest problem is worrying about a couple photos of his layout?  And then come on Forum to ask us "jailhouse lawyers" what we think? CURT hit the nail on the ol' head...WHY???