Photos of the youngest Middleton that are sure to embarrass Kate!

[Jenee]

I'm not happy someone has deleted my photobucket account becuase of this in fact i'm bloody annoyed coz I had some rare comedy stuff on there from The Goodies, Monty Python and I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again radio show from the 60's.

Just had a look becuase my sig pics have gone and it also contained certain pics of the Middleton's

The only people who can delete your photobucket account are the ones who have your password... so be more careful about handing it out!

I wonder if the Mail got permission from the copyright holder of those photos to reprint them.

I wonder the same thing. I have always wondered if photos posted on facebook and then reposted here were crossing the line.... and then the DM takes them from here and posts them on their website.... and the cycle continues! I think that once something is posted in public domain like a chat forum, or social networking site, it becomes public property and anyone can repost at will. I think... I'm not certain.

I find it hilarious, ...and the site is hardly ruined. If anything it's getting more traffic than ever.

Exactly. Case in point, we had 26 new registrations today! We average about 2 per day, so I'd say that the DM did some great advertising for us!

[Cordelia]

I wonder the same thing. I have always wondered if photos posted on facebook and then reposted here were crossing the line.... and then the DM takes them from here and posts them on their website.... and the cycle continues! I think that once something is posted in public domain like a chat forum, or social networking site, it becomes public property and anyone can repost at will. I think... I'm not certain.

No, it doesn't. I work for a publisher, and getting photo permissions is one of the most annoying parts of the whole process. I'm not a lawyer, but this is how I understand it. The photographer owns copyright to his work. However, as a condition of posting his photos at some sites, he agrees to let them use the photos for one or another purpose. If he has a contract with a photo agency to distribute his photos in exchange for a fee, he assigns copyright to them. That's why you'll see royal photos with "Associated Press" or "Reuters" shown as the copyright holder even though they aren't the photographer.

From reading the terms of use at Facebook, it looks as though any content posted by members can be used by Facebook without permission for pretty much any purpose, including for-profit purposes. So the Mail would only have had to go to Facebook and ask to use the photos, and maybe offer payment, and no laws would have been broken if Facebook granted permission. Alternatively the Mail could have gone to the Facebook member and done likewise. However, if the Mail had just helped itself to the photos without asking Facebook or the Facebook member/photographer, it would be breaking the law, although I doubt an individual would have the resources to sue.

It looks as though the photos were also posted at Photobucket, because that's where they were linked to from the thread here. Photobucket has the same clause as Facebook about posting photos, i.e., that by posting photos at Photobucket, the member grants Photobucket the right to use the photos in any way it wishes, including for-profit uses. However, Photobucket also has a rule saying that people shouldn't be using Photobucket to store photos they don't own. Obviously a lot of people are posting all sorts of copyrighted stuff there, and Photobucket isn't going to be too proactive in hunting them down and deleting their albums (there's no sense in alienating their members, after all). But when a controversy blows up over copyrighted photos that are stored at Photobucket, Photobucket will delete them to protect itself. So if the photos of James Middleton were in a Photobucket album belonging to someone other than the photographer, Photobucket was within its rights to delete them.

At least, that's how I understand things, but as I said, I'm not a lawyer, I just work in the publishing industry and have had more than a few frustrating experiences over copyright in my time.

[Anyasha]

The only people who can delete your photobucket account are the ones who have your password... so be more careful about handing it out!

Actually that's not true Jenee , the PB staff can delete your photos and your entire bucket if they feel enough photos broke their rules. If someone reported those photos and had good enough proof to back up their claims, PB could delete them.

[Jenee]

Well yeah, obviously....

[serene grace]

According to reports it seems
 FOX NEWS Owner also owns Photobucket and MySpace
http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-photobuckets-sale-to-fox-how-vc-insiders-made-big-personal-returns/

News Corp, the corporation that owns Fox News,They also own websites such as MySpace, IGN, and Photobucket.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270662,00.html

Rupert Murdoch owns soooo much. 

[Jenee]

So question.... if Rupert Murdoch owns Photobucket and Myspace and publications like the News of the World and The Sun... and by posting photographs on sites like Photobucket and Myspace, you are essentially signing over copyright to the website... could he legally take whatever he wants out of Photobucket and republish them in the NOTW?

[Natalie Bryant]

simple fact: if you do not want photos/vidoes/diary entries of you posted on the internet for all of the world to see, do not post them. No matter how 'private' you make an account of any kind. Someone, who has no life, will eventually figure out the password and expose your dirty secrets. Or if you say to much, you will end up eating your words. I have no sympathy for the Middleton clan, they come across as schemeing, extremely ambitious people who want nothing more than to get into the RF good graces.  They sound a lot like the Boylen Family during Henry VIII's reign.  Look what happened there. The only ones that got out almost free, was Mary Boylen (although she was called a ***) and the Mother.  Anne, Thomas, and George all either got killed or died of complications.   

[Jenee]

http://www.fashion.ie/aggregator/gossip/102989-will-kate-middleton-feel-embarrass-over-her-brother-photos

[serene grace]

So question.... if Rupert Murdoch owns Photobucket and Myspace and publications like the News of the World and The Sun... and by posting photographs on sites like Photobucket and Myspace, you are essentially signing over copyright to the website... could he legally take whatever he wants out of Photobucket and republish them in the NOTW?

I do wonder because, those papers have published photos of Chelsy also off of Facebook for awhile, so I think somehow those sites may hold some type of rights of their own over photos once placed there.

[Cordelia]

So question.... if Rupert Murdoch owns Photobucket and Myspace and publications like the News of the World and The Sun... and by posting photographs on sites like Photobucket and Myspace, you are essentially signing over copyright to the website... could he legally take whatever he wants out of Photobucket and republish them in the NOTW?

Honestly, I don't see why he couldn't. I don't know that the photographer would be signing over copyright - the photographer could still use the photos - but if I'm reading the Terms of Use of Photobucket correctly, then it seems to me that Photobucket can help itself to whatever's stored in its albums. Mind you, Photobucket and its owners have to make money somehow, and an awful lot of its members are using the free level of service. The problem would come when someone stores a photo he doesn't hold copyright to; I don't think Photobucket and its owners can reprint a Mario Testino photo of Diana without permission from Testino or his agent, simply because John Doe happens to be illegally storing a copy in his Photobucket account or Facebook page.

The thing I was mostly trying to say in my previous post was that it isn't safe to assume that a photo becomes public property just because it's found its way onto the internet. You could be in trouble if a copyrighted photo was posted here and the copyright owner decided to object.

[serene grace]

True, but those personal photos from people who sign up for Facebook and sign that agreement, may be giving Facebook(The Corporation who owns Facebook) the rights to be reprint them just by signing that contract, they may actually then become rights of Facebook also.
(but of course if a photo is copyrighted it can't be reprinted by someone else)

[Rasta Watermelon]

I think The Sun like The Daily Mail are trying to paint the Middleton's as being careless with their photo's. I think The Sun added their own version of that to go with The Daily Mail on Sunday version of those pics of James. Then the Daily Mail followed with that story of the stolen pics.

I have a feeling the press have declared war on Kate and her Family?

[leogirl]

I am bored with Kate. 

Wake me up when something new happens. 

[Lucy]

I am bored with Kate. 

Wake me up when something new happens. 

Fergie had pictures stolen, Anne's love letters  were stolen, so were some of Charles'. Nothing new , so it is run of the mill news at this point. All the same, it gives the media a chance to constantly discuss Kate and Wills which sells papers.

I like your attitude!

[Lucy]

True, but those personal photos from people who sign up for Facebook and sign that agreement, may be giving Facebook(The Corporation who owns Facebook) the rights to be reprint them just by signing that contract, they may actually then become rights of Facebook also.
(but of course if a photo is copyrighted it can't be reprinted by someone else)

Sounds logical to me. Copyright is usually relinquished on public websites.

[Rasta Watermelon]

I don't think anything was stolen from The Middleton's and some are trying to say elsewhere that is PR from The Middleton's too. I don't believe that either.

I think The Sun and The Daily Mail are trying to say The Middleton's are careless with their private pics, but have taken different angles to tell the readers that.

I think The Daily Mail ran with the James pics blamed the forum as cover. The Sun the next day then claimed someone tried to sell them illegal pics of The Middleton family holidaying with William, but still making The Middleton's look careless this time it was Pippa they claimed. The Daily Mail then ran with The Sun's story also to back up their story on Sunday.

I'm not believing this story of The Sun, but I do believe some of The Middleton's have been careless with their private pics.

I think The Daily Mail is right there is a smear campaign going on. Except we are not the ones doing it, it's the press trying to paint the picture of The Middleton Family as being something the Royal Family cannot afford to trust anymore.

[leogirl]

Smear campaign? Us?! 

We post on a forum. We're not the ones printing up papers and selling them, or selling ad space on our "news" site. If they copy our quotes, that is their choice, and stupid, too. Most of us don't know the Middleton's, a few have met them, but that's it. It's all opinions. Isn't news supposed to be fact-based?

[serene grace]

I don't think anything was stolen from The Middleton's and some are trying to say elsewhere that is PR from The Middleton's too. I don't believe that either.

I think The Sun and The Daily Mail are trying to say The Middleton's are careless with their private pics, but have taken different angles to tell the readers that.

I think The Daily Mail ran with the James pics blamed the forum as cover. The Sun the next day then claimed someone tried to sell them illegal pics of The Middleton family holidaying with William, but still making The Middleton's look careless this time it was Pippa they claimed. The Daily Mail then ran with The Sun's story also to back up their story on Sunday.

I'm not believing this story of The Sun, but I do believe some of The Middleton's have been careless with their private pics.

I think The Daily Mail is right there is a smear campaign going on. Except we are not the ones doing it, it's the press trying to paint the picture of The Middleton Family as being something the Royal Family cannot afford to trust anymore.

 

[Princess H]

The photos of James Middleton are no longer on the Daily Mail website, they were taken down! Did I overlook them somehow?

[Anyasha]

Hm, they show up for me.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1050938/Photos-youngest-Middleton-sure-embarrass-Kate.html

[leogirl]

Yes, me, too. Maybe the server was busy or bad connection. You might want to try again. 

[WANDA]

anyone of you has the full report of this, know if you can scan, which said it was 3 pages  PLEASE

[Cordelia]

True, but those personal photos from people who sign up for Facebook and sign that agreement, may be giving Facebook(The Corporation who owns Facebook) the rights to be reprint them just by signing that contract, they may actually then become rights of Facebook also.
(but of course if a photo is copyrighted it can't be reprinted by someone else)

Photobucket specifically says that they don't claim ownership of the stuff posted there by members; they just require that the member grant them a licence to use the material in any way they wish. That doesn't stop the member also using the content, since the member retains copyright. It does mean, however, that the content doesn't just become public property. I can't help myself to a photo from someone else's Photobucket account and post it in a thread or article without risking legal action from the person who stored it there (or from the actual copyright holder if the Photobucket member was storing commercial photos).

Facebook seems to be saying pretty much the same thing since it's specifically excluding member-posted content from the stuff about how Facebook owns everything on the site.

I'm sorry to keep on about this because I know it's off topic, but I was mostly responding to this comment by Jenee "I think that once something is posted in public domain like a chat forum, or social networking site, it becomes public property and anyone can repost at will. I think... I'm not certain."

because it isn't true that something becomes public property when it's been posted in a chat forum or social networking site, and the owners of this forum could be in trouble if people started posting photos here under the misapprehension that the photos were public property. We nearly had to stop presses on one of our books once because of a situation rather like that. That was the last time we let that particular author be responsible for collecting the permissions for the artwork in his book.

[serene grace]

I agree with what you are saying Cordelia.
I find it interesting.
 

[Jenee]

The thing I was mostly trying to say in my previous post was that it isn't safe to assume that a photo becomes public property just because it's found its way onto the internet. You could be in trouble if a copyrighted photo was posted here and the copyright owner decided to object.

Right, which is exactly why we don't allow pics to be posted directly on the forum... they have to be hosted elsewhere and linked to from here. Too much grey area!

because it isn't true that something becomes public property when it's been posted in a chat forum or social networking site, and the owners of this forum could be in trouble if people started posting photos here under the misapprehension that the photos were public property.

But I suppose the original could be linked to at will

Did you know that photobucket has a "copy to my album" button that you can use when browsing photographs?