Spot the difference….

Discussion in 'Fireworks Forum Chat And Discussion' started by lovefireworks, Jun 7, 2021.

  1. Not looking for help. Just putting this needless and lazy act out there.
     
    GoldenShower and DavidLL like this.
  2. Michael96

    Michael96 Supports UKFR

    maybe email them or contact them via phone and ask to remove? its always worth a shot
     
  3. paul s

    paul s Supports UKFR

    Given the “ generality” of the info I don’t suspect the op would have minded it being used, if permission was sought first.

    I suspect it’s not really about wanting it removed, more about the principle.
     
    lovefireworks and Limonskaya like this.
  4. I would. But it’s in a printed brochure.
     
  5. if only they had changed one of the coloured bands:rolleyes::rolleyes:
     
    lovefireworks and Pyro Pete like this.
  6. We caught one earlier this year that had copied our web information about delivering fireworks, even to the extent that they were going to use one of our vehicles to do their deliveries; I was half tempted to order something to see if I turned up in the van with the order.

    A quick phone call to them to start off with advising them the error of their ways did the trick but they were informed that failure to remove the page would result in their hosting company be advised who would not want copied material and would remove the site/page and that search engines would be informed which would result in their site not being displayed by them. I researched what to do in this sort of situation and those two things were advised but whether either of those things actually works in the real world I don't know but the threat of it seems to have the desired result.
     
    Drrusty, Pyro Pete and lovefireworks like this.
  7. @lovefireworks I wouldn't stress about it too much, drop them an email or call. I'm sure it's probably down to a designer grabbing bits from the internet as they do! I'm sure they will give you an extra friendly discount or make up for it some way, Happy Wednesday
     
  8. RocketRev

    RocketRev Moderator Supports UKFR

    Isn't the issue here that the copied material exists in printed form as a physical document rather than an electronic web page? So the actions mentioned by @Jordans Fireworks and others don't apply. The website, at least as it currently is, looks OK. The brochure on the website at the moment is the 2020 one and that also looks OK. So there seems to be no case for action that might jeopardise the website and therefore no leverage that can be applied there. The problem is with a physical catalogue that has already been sent out, is sitting on prospective customers' desks and cannot be effectively recalled. The deed has been done and cannot be undone. As for any remedy - maybe the appropriate thing would be an apology and a favourable trade deal by way of payment for material used and action to do things right next time round? (Oh, and not incorporating the offending 2021 catalogue into this year's website update - unless appropriate permissions, acknowledgements and payments are agreed.)
     
    lovefireworks likes this.
  9. rhydal

    rhydal Supports UKFR

    If this document is being made available to a wider audience, and thereby contributes to the safer firing of pyro, then I struggle to understand why anyone would be upset about its use, copyright or not.
     
  10. It's pretty simple. IP is IP. This stuff isn't free to us. It takes time/money for us to create it or to pay someone to create it for us. It's not a free-for-all once it's up online! From what you've said above, what's the point of having copyright on anything that protects the public!?

    I'm not sure if you've read the whole thread but as I've already said, it's not so much the stealing and use of the image completely unaltered from it's original, it's more the fact that they didn't ask. If you're struggling to understand that then I have no words.
     
    paul s and elmo like this.
  11. paul s

    paul s Supports UKFR

    PPE retailers are providing a product for the ‘greater good’ , but that doesn’t mean a retailer will be happy with other shop keepers coming to the store and nicking his stock for use in the own business.

    I suspect Gemstone didn’t intend to steal or upset, per se, but I think the op is more annoyed with the lack of courtesy.
     
  12. rhydal

    rhydal Supports UKFR

    It so isn't. It could be argued that this was copied for instruction in safety techniques and therefore comes under fair usage.
    What Is Fair Use? Fair Dealing Copyright Explained - The British Library (bl.uk)

    As someone who has a degree in computer science, I have examined this issue previously and can assure you that it is a hornets nest.
    If one unnoticeable pixel in an artwork is changed it is no longer the same original work and, even if still in it's original state, would take a team of lawyers to decide whether you have suffered material loss, and how much in damages would be available to you in terms of said loss, or gain derived by the person copying it. You have incurred no loss(unlike in the case @paul s puts forward above), and they would argue it didn't help sell any pyro(so not commercial use), just helped educate the purchasers to fire them safely. I'm no lawyer and neither are you. I would suspect the costs involved in taking the case to court would far outweigh any compensation.

    I would agree that the lack of courtesy and acknowledgment is rude though.
    Accusing people of stealing when no crime may have occurred, is also rude and potentially libellous.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2021
  13. Ooh, get you! Listen, I said nothing about taking action other than me never buying Gemstone products. Where did I mention lawyers and/or court action? It's plagiarism end of and if I see it I'll call it out!

    I'm not accusing anyone of stealing - it's obvious to anyone to see that they did.
     
  14. rhydal

    rhydal Supports UKFR

    You could not be more wrong.
    Line one of the theft act 1968....

    1Basic definition of theft.
    (1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

    You still have use of it.
     
  15. Insanity
     
    Drrusty likes this.
  16. Pyro Pete

    Pyro Pete Forum Editor

    Why don't we agree to disagree on this one guys?

    It's just that you both have firm but opposing views and this thread is heading quickly down the toilet.
     
    Lee boy, blackbat and lovefireworks like this.
  17. Without meaning to appear insensitive it's a generic image and all they really had to do was change the colour a bit.

    In other news - Yesterday we found that a very well known importer has completely ripped off our F1 Party Selection Box

    I suppose in a way these things happen and it could be looked upon as a sort of compliment - but morally I wouldn't do that, maybe that's just me. Old fashioned and turning into Victor Meldrew.
     
    elmo and lovefireworks like this.
  18. gunpowderplot

    gunpowderplot Pro Firer/Crew

    turning into victor meldew i always thought you were allready :eek:
     
  19. paul s

    paul s Supports UKFR

    I’m quite interested in the ‘theft’ definition etc and have learned something. The fact that theft has to involve permanently depriving the owner of something is not something I was aware of.

    If I “borrow” my neighbour’s car with the intention of giving it back then I presume that is not theft? Also, piracy of movies is regarded as theft (according to the ad at the start of many DVD’s); but copying a dvd doesn’t deprive the owner of the original.

    I was wondering if starting a discussion about this in the non pyro forum would be more appropriate..? :)
     
    Chorlton Fireworks likes this.
  20. rhydal

    rhydal Supports UKFR

    Unfortunately it does fall under the act as an amendment was made to cover 'taking a vehicle without authority'....
    DVD piracy is covered by fraud laws in this country I believe. It did when the fraud squad raided my neighbours house back in the noughties.
    Like I say I'm not a lawyer.
     
    paul s likes this.