commander Posted November 25, 2009 Author Share Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) Actually Joris I was contacted about these DUKWS and asked to view them to see if I wanted to buy them I had contacted the owner of the land the vehicles were on and arranged to go over and meet him which we did and he directed us to the site where they are and for safariswing to ask me why I thought they were for sale and did I have permission I find that rather a personal question to ask on an open forum and if he was so interested in my personal buisness to have got in touch with me direct by a pm I see that someone has edited my posting and changed the wording of the forum topic from Re: 11 DUKWS for sale £600 each Shame Though to Re: 11 dukws ******NOT FOR SALE****** ?????????? Commander Edited November 25, 2009 by commander Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Thats great news - at least they are all in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmite!! Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I see that someone has edited my posting and changed the wording of the forum topic from Re: 11 DUKWS for sale £600 each Shame Though to Re: 11 dukws ******NOT FOR SALE****** ?????????? Commander Yes because we have been informed by the owner that they are not for sale... Alarmed at the posting I have spoken to the farmer who own's the field they are on and he assures me he has made no move to scrap or sell these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmite!! Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 did I have permission I find that rather a personal question to ask on an open forum It's a question of Copyright, if the photos were taken on the land without the land owners permission then publishing the photos on the forum would be breach of Copyright as copyright stays with the land owner. If you had permission to take the photos then no problem & the fact you stated this on the open forum implies that you have copyright on the photos puts HMVF in the clear re any copyright issues. We don't normaly have to get into this but as the owner of the Vehicles was unaware that they were being offered for sale & states that the Field owner has made no moves to dispose of them we just wanted to make the situation clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 It's a question of Copyright, if the photos were taken on the land without the land owners permission then publishing the photos on the forum would be breach of Copyright as copyright stays with the land owner. If you had permission to take the photos then no problem & the fact you stated this on the open forum implies that you have copyright on the photos puts HMVF in the clear re any copyright issues. We don't normaly have to get into this but as the owner of the Vehicles was unaware that they were being offered for sale & states that the Field owner has made no moves to dispose of them we just wanted to make the situation clear. Are you sure about that Lee? AIUI, copyright exists with the originator, i.e. the photographer unless he was working for someone else or as agreed beforehand. In all other cases, copyright would be his. Given your ability to turn up legal texts, I await your response! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmite!! Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Are you sure about that Lee? AIUI, copyright exists with the originator, i.e. the photographer unless he was working for someone else or as agreed beforehand. In all other cases, copyright would be his. Given your ability to turn up legal texts, I await your response! :-D If the photo was taken from public property ie the street then the copyright is with the photographer, if it is taken on private property then unless permission was given it remains with the property owner... all the museums have this sign up when you enter stating that any photos taken on there property remains theiir copyright unless permission is given... There's a thread about this on the forum somewhere.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I'd still like to see that written in a legal form. The museum thing is more a 'condition of entry' statement rather than something that would stand up to copyright infringement as I understand. I'll try and find the previous thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoggyDriver Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Seems to me it's the farmer that needs checking out. On the one hand he is telling the owner that no moves are being made to dispose of these DUKW's and then at the same time he is telling someone else he is getting a scrappy in to cut them up. Reading between the lines I reckon this farmer is SICK of these DUKW's on his land and wants shot of them quick, and who can blame him, it sounds like they have been there for years. If I was the owner of these vehicles I'd be looking at getting the rest of these vehicles recovered pronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmite!! Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I'd still like to see that written in a legal form. The museum thing is more a 'condition of entry' statement rather than something that would stand up to copyright infringement as I understand. I'll try and find the previous thread. there's a bit here but mainly deals with tresspass http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ukphotographersrights-v2.pdf I do have the link for the copyright bit having trouble finding it... Anyway if Commander has permission to be on the land, take the photos & publish them then no problem... I know some people don't like there stuff being published all over the place, there's a well known MV dealer/collector who has no problem with photos being taken but only for personal use & not to be published.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoggyDriver Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 The Photography question. Photography carried out without permission on private land is not unlawful. The landowner may insist that photography cease, and may use reasonable force to eject the photographer if they do not leave when requested. The landowner may also have a case for civil trespass, but has no power to demand handover of images or equipment. In general no claim over copyright of the images arises, although economic copyright (the right to earnings derived) can be forfeit if the photographs undermine the landowners' revenues from photography. Full version here; http://tonysleep.co.uk/node/605 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon_M Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) I remember getting some spare hull drain valves from one of these years ago for DUSTY DUKW. These are all hulls that are past saving, but with numerous very useful bits. I understood that Rex Ward had bought all Glynn's DUKW stock and would have thought that these were included. To be fair some are so far gone that sectioning them would be the way to get them shifted, but the parts do need saved. Sorry Rex, I've just been through the thread again and notice you have clarifed all this Gordon Edited November 25, 2009 by Gordon_M read the thread again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rippo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Yes because we have been informed by the owner that they are not for sale... Have you actually spoken to the owner youself lee? From what the post says it looks like your going off someone elses words not the owners. I think its a bit harsh to edit the thread as you have done. I'm sure commander isn't trying to pull a fast one, and his only concern is trying to help others out. That maybe that the farmer is selling someone elses property, if they are already sold. It's a bit heavy handed to do what you've done and will only stop people posting about there finds. The person who took the photo's owns the copyright, a friend of mine is professional photographer. How does google earth go on? they've got the pictures on there site, and many more of private property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I think the picture copyright is with the photographer but Google Earth is a bit of a red herring as the pictures there are taken from public areas not private property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snapper Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I am sure this is an element of the 1988 Copyright Act which remains in force. I've read the photography related sections several times in the past. It is indeed a case that photography on private property is subject to permission from the landowner. You may well be in possession of your snaps and confiscating equipment is not allowed - so how cinemas claim to do it, I do not know ( as an aside). In mediation for Lee - when I was a moderator, we were increasingly concerned about breaches of copyright. These are litigious times and a forum like ours could be shut down if we were found to be deliberately in breach of copyright in these circumstances. A while ago we ran a pic of an AFV inside a certain yard and the picture had almost certainly been obtained by an act of trespass, however unmalicious (and it most certainly was unmalicious in this case). We have to be careful all the time. Lee acts with the best of intentions for this forum 24/7. The Photography question. Photography carried out without permission on private land is not unlawful. The landowner may insist that photography cease, and may use reasonable force to eject the photographer if they do not leave when requested. The landowner may also have a case for civil trespass, but has no power to demand handover of images or equipment. In general no claim over copyright of the images arises, although economic copyright (the right to earnings derived) can be forfeit if the photographs undermine the landowners' revenues from photography. Full version here; http://tonysleep.co.uk/node/605 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 It is hard one all round as we have a company using one of our images to sell something on MILWEB - I have asked both companies if they could be as kind as to sort that out just to save any confusion to our clients. No one has even had the good manners to reply...so sometimes it isn't worth wasting time on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I love a dispute in which I have no part, nor any interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick W Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I love a dispute in which I have no part, nor any interest. :-D I dare not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I love a dispute in which I have no part, nor any interest. Mike - you feeling OK? Do you need to go and lay down at all??:iloveyou: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmite!! Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) Have you actually spoken to the owner youself lee? From what the post says it looks like your going off someone elses words not the owners. . Post 18 Hi - just to end any speculation about these DUKW's they were part of the Glyne Hewitt collection, he has been suffering from ill health for the past few years and has sold off his better more restorable examples in the past two years. I bought these remnants off him earlier this year and am in the process of stripping them of usefull parts and spares - though as can be seen there aren't that many usable items on some of them. Are you saying DUKWMAN is not the owner then:confused: I think its a bit harsh to edit the thread as you have done. All that has been editted it the title as the "Owner" says they are not for sale or being cut up for scrap at this time. If someone was to tell the members that your property was for sale when it wasn't, what would you want us to do? Edited November 25, 2009 by Marmite!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmite!! Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 We have to be careful all the time. Lee acts with the best of intentions for this forum 24/7. Correct, Thanks Mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martylee Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I thought I was ready for your european union, but after reading about all your laws that limit your fun, I'm not so sure anymore... :-) I understand I have to more careful with my photos from now on. Probably a good thing it was brought up here. Good luck everyone! By the way wasn't I just read about some Dukws? I must be getting old... Marty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50 cal ( † RIP † ) Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 im sure safariwing acts in the best INTEREST of the forum but he has been known to give out wrong information sometimes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joris Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 im sure safariwing acts in the best INTEREST of the forum but he has been known to give out wrong information sometimes Correct, everybody can make a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmite!! Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 im sure safariwing acts in the best INTEREST of the forum but he has been known to give out wrong information sometimes Nobody's perfect but I can't see why this thread is turning into another one about me??... the issue is... are the DUKW's for sale or not..:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rippo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Originally Posted by rippo Have you actually spoken to the owner youself lee? From what the post says it looks like your going off someone elses words not the owners. . Lee, You haven't answered my Question, have you spoken to the owner yourself? The way the post was edited late on last night i guess you haven't, or at that point you didn't, you were taking what Duwkmans first post on the forum said, over commanders thread. I dont mean any offence to duwkman or commander, but who's to say dukwman isn't some crank trying to ward people off as he's trying to get the lot for less than scrap? I don't know whats going on but it all seems a little big brotherish when you are editing peoples posts, when your none wiser about the truth. I know neither duwkman or commander, and i have no idea who owns the duwks as neither do you, your only taking Duwkmans word for it, Over commanders, who in his first thread states he had the land owners permission to take the pictures, which commander can do whatever he likes with. Commander was only passing the information on that he was told. Now if duwkman does own them its to his benefit that commander posted his comments, at least now he knows that his duwks are being offered for sale and he can do something about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts