Regarding "Shoebill in an unspecified location - 2012"

dillotest0

dillotest0

Well-Known Member
5+ year member
I see that a recent picture of a shoebill I uploaded has since been deleted, on the account that it was not myself who took this picture of this shoebill, albeit a family member of mine.
I assumed that since this family member had lent this picture, and other pictures, to my ownership, it would be fine for me to upload to ZooChat. To add, this family member essentially has nothing to do with this shoebill.
But in any case, I guess I will upload pictures that are only explicitly part of my collection in future. I meant no harm in uploading this shoebill to ZooChat.
 
If such a rule is in place, and their is no alternative, would any moderator reading this have the kindness of deleting all of my photos from the ‘Mysore Zoo’, ‘Animal and Zoo ID’ and ‘India - Wildlife’ categories, as they were taken by my parents or other relatives and not by myself. I would have reported them, but that would take an inordinate amount of time.
 
dillotest0 said:
I see that a recent picture of a shoebill I uploaded has since been deleted, on the account that it was not myself who took this picture of this shoebill, albeit a family member of mine.
I assumed that since this family member had lent this picture, and other pictures, to my ownership, it would be fine for me to upload to ZooChat. To add, this family member essentially has nothing to do with this shoebill.
Click to expand...

I believe the issue is that the description you left on the image gave the impression you had zero connection to the photograph, and implied it was a random photo found online:

"The creator of the folder's photographs specified the locations of only a few of them, such as the San Diego Zoo, where this shoebill probably not was. However, looking at pictures of zoo shoebill exhibits, I am led to think that this shoebill probably lived in the Zurich Zoo."

So this explanation changes matters somewhat; we are in active discussion as to how best to proceed :)
 
Yes, looking at the description you gave of the photos - I also got the impression that these photos were from some unrelated 3rd party.

I don't have a problem with you uploading photos that were taken by a family member - but it would be best in future to mention that in the description. This is on the assumption that they don't actually have a problem with you uploading the photos to ZooChat!

I have myself uploaded photos taken by my father when I was a child.

To be clear:
  • photos from distant cousins who happen to be professional photographers would not be acceptable - copyright really does become an issue then
  • photos from friends is also generally not acceptable, regardless of whether they give you permission or not
  • I will accept immediate / close family members where they are okay with you uploading the images.

Your photos have been reinstated - thanks for clarifying!
 
Junklekitteb said:
If such a rule is in place, and their is no alternative, would any moderator reading this have the kindness of deleting all of my photos from the ‘Mysore Zoo’, ‘Animal and Zoo ID’ and ‘India - Wildlife’ categories, as they were taken by my parents or other relatives and not by myself. I would have reported them, but that would take an inordinate amount of time.
Click to expand...

You're all good - as mentioned in my previous message - provided that your family are okay with you uploading their photos to ZooChat, it's fine.
 
Simon Hampel said:
To be clear:
  • photos from distant cousins who happen to be professional photographers would not be acceptable - copyright really does become an issue then
  • photos from friends is also generally not acceptable, regardless of whether they give you permission or not
  • I will accept immediate / close family members where they are okay with you uploading the images.
Click to expand...
I was given some Bristol Zoo photos from the 90's by a friend for the purpose of scanning them in to be posted onto ZooChat. With what you've said in mind, I wouldn't be allowed to post them, despite their historical significance and having permission to do so?
 
Simon Hampel said:
Yes, looking at the description you gave of the photos - I also got the impression that these photos were from some unrelated 3rd party.

I don't have a problem with you uploading photos that were taken by a family member - but it would be best in future to mention that in the description. This is on the assumption that they don't actually have a problem with you uploading the photos to ZooChat!

I have myself uploaded photos taken by my father when I was a child.

To be clear:
  • photos from distant cousins who happen to be professional photographers would not be acceptable - copyright really does become an issue then
  • photos from friends is also generally not acceptable, regardless of whether they give you permission or not
  • I will accept immediate / close family members where they are okay with you uploading the images.

Your photos have been reinstated - thanks for clarifying!
Click to expand...

I have concerns about this. I have close relatives with whom I have no contact whatsoever. We are completely estranged. On the other hand I have friends who are close enough to be family members. I don’t understand why this distinction is made.

On this subject, all these photos which I uploaded of takins in Bhutan should probably be deleted as they don’t meet these apparently arbitrary standards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNT
Shirokuma said:
I don’t understand why this distinction is made.
Click to expand...

It's simply about copyright.

The family factor is indeed arbitrary and is based on the assumption that there will be implicit agreement due to your close family relationship and no documentary evidence required. Of course, I'm assuming you've asked that family member if it is okay that you upload the photos to ZooChat. If you have estranged family members then the assumption is that there would be no agreement - implicit or otherwise - and thus you should not upload photos taken by that person.

If this is still confusing to you - then simply don't upload any photos that you have not personally taken and own the copyright to.
 
Simon Hampel said:
It's simply about copyright.

The family factor is indeed arbitrary and is based on the assumption that there will be implicit agreement due to your close family relationship and no documentary evidence required. Of course, I'm assuming you've asked that family member if it is okay that you upload the photos to ZooChat. If you have estranged family members then the assumption is that there would be no agreement - implicit or otherwise - and thus you should not upload photos taken by that person.

If this is still confusing to you - then simply don't upload any photos that you have not personally taken and own the copyright to.
Click to expand...

Frankly bizarre. Why should you deem a family relationship a valid one but not a friendship relationship? Do please delete the Bhutan takin photos as quickly as possible given the serious copyright issues which could take down the whole site.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNT
Shirokuma said:
Frankly bizarre. Why should you deem a family relationship a valid one but not a friendship relationship? Do please delete the Bhutan takin photos as quickly as possible given the serious copyright issues which could take down the whole site.
Click to expand...

Copyright is a serious issue. As a website owned and run by one person as a hobby, Sim does his best to keep any potential legal issue from happening, to protect himself and the website as a whole. Even if you are estranged from your family, you still have a connection to them; the same can't be said for friendships that end.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TinoPup said:
Copyright is a serious issue. As a website owned and run by one person as a hobby, Sim does his best to keep any potential legal issue from happening, to protect himself and the website as a whole. Even if you are estranged from your family, you still have a connection to them; the same can't be said for friendships that end.
Click to expand...

My point is that saying a family member is a valid connection but a friend is not is exclusionary. What about LGBTQ people, a community who are disproportionately impacted by family rejection? In many cases friends are their de facto family.

I can assure you have zero connection to people with whom I share DNA but incredibly strong ties to friends who have supported me in life.

These assumptions about what constitutes a valid connection have a toxic past. Friends and partners of gay men dying of AIDS in hospital were denied access but homophobic family members could waltz in and take over. Funerals could take place without life partners being present, even knowing about the arrangements.

I maintain that this is an arbitrary rule based on assumptions which are exclusionary and heteronormative. I feel incredibly strongly about this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shirokuma said:
My point is that saying a family member is a valid connection but a friend is not is exclusionary. What about LGBTQ people, a community who are disproportionately impacted by family rejection? In many cases friends are their de facto family.

I can assure you have zero connection to people with whom I share DNA but incredibly strong ties to friends who have supported me in life.

These assumptions about what constitutes a valid connection have a toxic past. Friends and partners of gay men dying of AIDS in hospital were denied access but homophobic family members could waltz in and take over. Funerals could take place without life partners being present, even knowing about the arrangements.

I maintain that this is an arbitrary rule based on assumptions which are exclusionary and heteronormative. I feel incredibly strongly about this.
Click to expand...

Your paragraph about AIDS is exactly the point. Family, legally, is considered different from those who are friends, no matter what your emotional ties are. If Sim were to be sued by someone, it would make a difference in how the situation is viewed and what the potential outcome could be. This isn't an emotional discussion and has nothing to do with various situations, or your assumptions of me. This is purely from a legal perspective.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ThomasNotTom said:
I was given some Bristol Zoo photos from the 90's by a friend for the purpose of scanning them in to be posted onto ZooChat. With what you've said in mind, I wouldn't be allowed to post them, despite their historical significance and having permission to do so?
Click to expand...

@Simon Hampel would you be able to address my post from the 19th January please?
 
oh dear, it looks this shoebill has caused some complex discussion on copyright law!
I look forward to adding more shoebill to the photographic collection of mine in future, as so he is not too lonely..
 
ThomasNotTom said:
@Simon Hampel would you be able to address my post from the 19th January please?
Click to expand...

Was there any part of my previous posts which didn't answer the question you posed?

I'll restate it here:

Simon Hampel said:
photos from friends is also generally not acceptable, regardless of whether they give you permission or not
Click to expand...

It is unfortunate that there may be some content that gets missed because of this rule - but I have to draw the line somewhere and this is where I've chosen to draw it.

To be clear - as the publisher of a website, I am personally responsible for the content that gets published here - even if posted by other people. I choose to take a cautious approach to dealing with these issues - and I have had to deal with legal issues over copyright in the past, so these things do come up.
 
Shirokuma said:
My point is that saying a family member is a valid connection but a friend is not is exclusionary. What about LGBTQ people, a community who are disproportionately impacted by family rejection? In many cases friends are their de facto family.
Click to expand...

I think my rules are pretty clear and simple - again, this is where I've chosen to draw the line because it has to be drawn somewhere.

It has nothing to do with your personal situation and as I said - if you have photos which don't meet the criteria I've specified, don't upload them to ZooChat.
 
I support Sim's decision to protect himself legally as he sees fit.
I do marvel at his assertion that
Simon Hampel said:
The family factor is indeed arbitrary and is based on the assumption that there will be implicit agreement due to your close family relationship and no documentary evidence required.
Click to expand...
Apparently Sims doesn't know families as many of us do :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top