Antgtv is a member of an Opel (Vauxhall) VX200 owners forum.

The police were interested after The Sun reported his self-publicity of doing 150mph.

The police apparently have "caught" Antgtv.

Photo as your avatar indeed, huh?
(Also highlights the Forrest Gump approach to forum posting too, of course)

Interesting case. There 's been some debate in the past I believe about whether the speed cameras constitute sufficient evidence to prosecute someone. Must people's guilt is wrapped up in them signing the form that declares they were the driver which at the same time acts as a "confession" statement. Interesting to see whether such obviously uncalibrated machinery as his personal camera can be used as evidence.

Something else I found interesting...The Sun has a picture of him on their site which you can't copy. I was going to paste it on here to provide a further example of why he might be best advised not to use his picture as an avatar . But the picture is copyright of News International apparently.

Is this how it works? If the Sun took a picture of any one of us (without our permission as presumably was the case here), are they then able to post up on a website while at the same time denying us access to use it ourselves?

You mean this one:



There are ways to protect images. Lame bits of javascript isn't one of them...

This guy was pretty silly to say he did it himself. He should have said "my mate"

indeed; the Sun's right-click JS blocker does not hide source - and does not even work if you turn JS off

Nice work guys....

But if even if they did use some kind of protection that was good enough to outfox even the likes of you two, would their contention that they had the protection of copyright laws on such pictures carry any validity?

Sorry - didn't answer your question...

Yes - that's how it works. If I take a picture of you in your house in the shower and publish it then you come after me.

But if you are outside and someone takes a picture of you - you don't have any rights to dictate the terms of how that image is used - you are out in public - if you don't want to be seen - don't go out!

Interestingly this is contrary to what most people believe. They think that as a private person that any images of them can only be shown with their permission.

The exception is if you get a picture of a celebrity doing something embarrassing and you profit from possibly harming their reputation.

So the Sun's covered on this one. I hope their lawyers are better than their webmasters...

Yes, technically I was warned that this was a copyrighted image and I stole it anyway. So technically they could have me for nicking it. BUt this is a member's only area and I plan to delete it shortly, I was just making a point.

In fact, technically this image hasn't been copied, the image is coming directly from the Sun's webserver (because they weren't smart enough to block sideloading), so if they wanted to make a fuss it might be different.

But just to be clear - nobody can go around stealing other people's images and text without their permission - copyright or not. That's why we have a policy on the forum not to just copy and paste bits out of other websites.

Unfortunately in this day and age people think that just because their computer has a copy and paste function that they can just lift and repost content wherever they want - there should always be some ethics considered...

What the current situation in France ?
dave

actually copyright only comes into play if you claim something to be yours or duplicate something without permission.

Mark is only committing bandwidth-theft. Which is something the Sun could have set as they run Apache 1.33 on a unix platform for their website.

The exception I believe is if your photograph appears commercialy, i.e. on an advertisement. There was a story from the US last year of a guy recognising himself either on some packaging or an advert. He sued and won millions (and that isn't just because he was in the US) - can't remember the details right now but I'm sure someone else can.

Not when there are people of the <alt><prntscrn> generation about.

Pah!

Get SnagIt for free:
get a key and download here

That may be a US-specific case, and who knows, he probably shouldn't have won, but did anyway. I notice American TV programs pixelate faces in public like crazy, but I think this is just be cautious - such additional behaviour is often done by US companies "just in case".

I'm pretty sure that if you get snapped on the street and find yourself plastered all over billboards there wouldn't be much you could do about it if it came down to it. Of course in practice advertising is seldom done that way, since they need the model to do what they want in order to get the perfect shot. In such a case a specific modelling agreement exists, but generally the rights go to the photographer rather than the model, unless otherwise agreed beforehand.

I did notice that nobody's face was blurred when enjoying Dog the Bountyhunter yesterday morning.

It was on between the shows "America's Most Retarded" and "Judge Judy"