Spot the difference….

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

  1. RocketRev

    RocketRev Moderator Supports UKFR

    I wonder if we're getting close to highlighting some issues about handling some very common material in the firework retail business? I can't remember ever seeing a consumer firework brochure that didn't have some form of safety advice included in it. Many have included firework display advice that illustrates safe display site layout principles. There might be a public interest in having such things copied between brochures by the various companies. But the "for instruction" idea put forward by @rhydal does not, to my mind, apply since the context is quite different from the context in the document he linked to. Nor do I think a "Fair Dealing" defence could be successfully argued given the 4 conditions that the document linked to indicates have to be met.

    It seems to me that the use of the material that's the subject of this thread fails to satisfy 3 of those 4 conditions :
    • The work is not copied using reprographics : to produce a printed brochure that included the work copied, this condition is unlikely to have been met, given the routine definition of reprographics;
    • The source of the examination or instruction material is acknowledged : from what the OP has said, this has not been done;
    • The examination or instruction is solely non-commercial : the copied material is in a brochure that primarily exists to advertise goods for sale and to invite customers to buy them. That does not appear to be a solely non-commercial context. Although I do see a way that this could be open to debate.
    Of those conditions, the most clear cut is the 2nd. It's also quite easy to comply with. The other two might be less clear cut and also less easy to comply with.

    That's my take on the situation, as someone who's had an investigation, compliance and prosecution role with regard to Acts of Parliament and Regulations and the interpretation and application of them.
     
    lovefireworks and RCT like this.
  2. paul s

    paul s Supports UKFR

    (That’s my plans buggered for a trip out in next door’s TT and later pulling over to watch No Time To Die, before returning the keys)
    :(
     
    rhydal likes this.
  3. Saltpetre

    Saltpetre Pro Firer/Crew

    ;I wonder if this thread shouldnt be moved to the non pyro chat section ? Whist the views of the parties maybe of some, limited interest, to members I dont feel that it has much to do with Pyro ?
     
    Lee boy likes this.
  4. dazuto

    dazuto Supports UKFR

    Amazing suggestion. I keep thinking there's new relevant content to read, but no... it's just this thread. Would be better suited to twitter.
     
    Lee boy likes this.
  5. paul s

    paul s Supports UKFR

    Threads are there to be read, contributed to, or simply ignored - it’s a member's choice which they prefer. Not all topics will be if interest to everyone.
    :)
     
  6. MrDan

    MrDan Pro Firer/Crew Supports UKFR

    I'm surprised your computer science degree didn't inform you that Intellectual Property Infringement is commonly referred to as Intellectual Property Theft, and that under the Theft Act 1968 a person can be deprived of something (a loss) which one "might otherwise get" - e.g. potential income.

    Didn't your degree cover the roles of organisations such as FACT and FAST?

    Mine did.
     
    DannyB likes this.
  7. chris 1953

    chris 1953 Supports UKFR

    now boys, rattles and prams come to mine:(
     
  8. maxywell

    maxywell Supports UKFR

    Think this thread could be doing with a little padlock...
     
  9. RocketRev

    RocketRev Moderator Supports UKFR

    Not yet..... it's turning out to be quite educational !
    I'd be inclined to let it continue - as long as we can have a good natured discussion and debate rather than getting all adversarial and into "fire fight" mode. Pooling our knowledge drawn from our varying backgrounds and experiences to work out what's right and what's not - and then to learn from that - can be quite beneficial.

    It's worth bearing in mind our UKFR "Community Rules" which includes:
    "We welcome debate and we accept as a forum of diverse people that a wide range of sometimes opposing views will present themselves. However, please be constructive and friendly. We do not allow trolling, flames or attacks on other members, unnecessary insults, excessive profanity or conduct that is nasty or negative for the sake of it."
    https://www.fireworks-forum.org.uk/help/terms
    If things get out of order, with that in mind, then moderation or padlocks might end up having to be applied. Let's try not to end up there.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2021
  10. Daveandkate

    Daveandkate Pro Firer/Crew Supports UKFR

    Any image or artist image if you can prove you are the original! Person you own rights
    Same as if I took a picture of Wayne mark peter in there shops I own the rights to that image and if they used that picture without asking i can sue
    All these laws that people have quoted there out of date 1968
    Come on @MrDan your trying to quote laws/out of date
    Every item I make I take pictures if someone uses them your sued
    Use my terms and conditions wording your sued
    Anything said online that causes loss to a company sued
    Quoting a law 50yrs old before mobile phones social media and such I'm with the OP
     
  11. dazuto

    dazuto Supports UKFR

    The image in question is offered first and foremost as safety advice (correct me if I'm wrong), and this type of image has been done to death (in different variations) since the early 2000s if not before.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=fir...WUOsAKHW1IAf0Q_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1292&bih=800

    While the image in question is a copy of lovefireworks image... good luck getting anywhere with a legal pursuit using the argument "someone stole my ideas for font, colours, and block layout". That type of image and its content is too common to even attempt a claim of plagiarism in a modern court. One could argue that lovefireworks image is plagiarising ZeusFireworks:

    https://zeusfireworks.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Site-LAyout.jpg

    The irony is palpable.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2021
    rhydal likes this.
  12. rhydal

    rhydal Supports UKFR

    I'll assume your picture is fairly current and that you did your degree in the last 10-20 years or so.
    I'm 54 this year and did mine in the eighties when those organisations were in their infancies and not being taught in the module.
    I was still programming in PASCAL back then and went on to work in ICL and IBM mainframe environments using reel to reel mag tapes and card readers. That was long before t'internet and PCs were a common thing.
    Happy to bow to your more current knowledge of the industry.

    In terms of lost income I'm not sure how that is relevant?
    It's not like the DVD example where they were selling it and sales could have been affected by duplication. I would venture that Gemstone incurred extra costs from adding the safety info to the leaflet with no revenue generated from that specific picture. I'd also venture their intentions were well meant if potentially mis-guided.

    I'd also question whether this thread would exist if it were Celtic or Bright Star had made this leaflet i.e. brands the OP sells?
     
    MrDan likes this.
  13. As you're questioning it I'll answer it. Yes, it would.
     
    DannyB and MrDan like this.
  14. Again, I NEVER mentioned wanting to get anywhere with a legal pursuit.

    Not at all. I wasn't suggesting that use of the 'site layout' image was in question here. It was the fact that the colours and fonts of the one we had PAID to get done had been used elsewhere, FOC, without consent.
     
  15. RocketRev

    RocketRev Moderator Supports UKFR

    @rhydal Your post bring back memories.... and now I'm feeling old! I suppose I should - since I turn 64 this week! I started off doing an electronics degree before switching to theology (!!)..... so learnt programming in the Fortran and Algol days when only punched card and paper tape was available. I remember the very first green screen VDUs arriving in the university computer centre. Those were very much the hand fired firework display days. And now we're glibly talking of "programming" & wirelessly firing firework displays via apps on mobile 'phones with high definition full colour display screens! And the luxury of buying fireworks using online catalogues with videos to help us choose!
     
    Jon, Duskyfuse and MrDan like this.
  16. MrDan

    MrDan Pro Firer/Crew Supports UKFR

    The OP owns the intellectual property rights to the image. They have a legal right to control how that image is used.

    If they wanted to charge a license or royalty fee for using their Intellectual Property then they can, and they could generate income from that.
    Using the image without permission deprives the rights holder of that potential.

    Whether or not anybody would actually pay to use such a simple image is a totally different matter ;)
     
    rhydal and hofnerite like this.
  17. rhydal

    rhydal Supports UKFR

    The computer centre I worked in is a Tesco now. I drive past it every time I go to my sister's house.
    Happy innocent times of microfiche archives and laser printers the size of a Transit van come rushing back.
     
  18. RocketRev

    RocketRev Moderator Supports UKFR

    That's made me think...... on a Monday and at my age, too! But I wonder if the OP does own the intellectual property rights. They say they paid for the artwork...... so they commissioned it from someone. Would that someone, being the actual originator of the artwork, be the person who actually holds those rights? And did the originator assign those rights to the OP as part of the contract, or grant exclusive rights to the OP to use the artwork, or a limited right to use the artwork? That then leads on to wondering if the original creator of the artwork still has the IP rights, they could perhaps then sell the same to another company - in this case for use in a printed brochure. If that's the case, then both firework companies would have the legitimate right to use the artwork, having paid the due fees to the designer and without having to ask each other's permission.
     
    rhydal likes this.
  19. MrDan

    MrDan Pro Firer/Crew Supports UKFR

    That's a good point, I totally missed that part.
    It would depend entirely on the contract entered into for the commission, and whether there was any exclusivity or resale rights retained or granted.
     
  20. rhydal

    rhydal Supports UKFR

    CEO of Gemstone reading this thread......
     
    Gemstone and Lee boy like this.