28DL and UE in the News The Urban Explorer Website - Blackpool Gazette

[Hidden]

It doesn't actually state 28dayslater but that's basically what it is trying to say and has used images from Zero81's report in their article...

http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local/death_trap_to_be_demolished_1_3568282

It's in regards to the demolition of that site and how we glamorise the dangers of these places, apparently

 

[Styru]

Pictures are from ZerO81's report

http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=60707

 

[Muttley]

And it follows new ‘glamorised’ images of the Emmanuel Christian School, a derelict building on the site, posted on Urban Explorer website – run by an underground group who gain access to prominent urban locations across the UK.

Woohoo I'm in an "underground group" : Shame we couldn't be called "shady" as well.

These images have led to increased fears a child will be killed on the waste ground and have fuelled calls from community leaders to flatten the ‘potential death trap’.

Err...how so?

Commenting on the new images of the Emmanuel school, Lancashire watch manager Colin Hickson said anyone who ‘glamorised’ trespassing on private and dangerous property was breaking the law.

No "glamorous" photos then boys and girls, and best delete the Page 3 thread as well

 

[ZerO81]

'glamorised’ images of the Emmanuel Christian School

How exactly is that photo glamorising the site....granted its a bit of HDR, but its not exactly glamorous.

These images have led to increased fears a child will be killed on the waste ground

I never knew the power of photographs was that strong!

It is believed other buildings including the former Emmanuel Christian School, Cheshire House and the secure housing used as the main building of the school will remain intact until a buyer is confirmed.

1. Emmanuel School is fire damaged death trap - its being kept
2. Cheshire house has also been torched and is very unstable - its being kept
3. The secure unit has no windows left in it and has also been torched. - its being kept

So, with that being said, what exactly are they going to demolish.

anyone who ‘glamorised’ trespassing on private and dangerous property was breaking the law.

I did not realise that there was a law to break which covered glamorising trespass.

I am very tempted to put an invoice in to them, but its the first time this is happened so i dont even know if its worth the hassle..nor do i have any idea how much to charge them - anyone browsing this thread who has had this happen care to share their experiences?

 

[Ojay]

Fuck me', the whole forum will be in the press soon

Copy & paste headlines

 

[dweeb]

"death trap"? ffs...

 

[ZerO81]

Right,

My 'legal rep' has been on the phone to the person who wrote this article and they have said the following:-

"because the picture are housed on the public domain - i.e. posted on the forum, they can take them as they are on the public domain"

I do not think this is right because the images are not actually housed on this site, they are linked to my site, so in theory, all though they have been taken 'from this site', they have still been taken from my site and they have had the watermark removed.

They are trying to tar everyone with the 'vandalism' brush and if i push this issue with them is it more hassle than its worth.

Hopefully some people who have been through this before will be able to come on and offer further advice.

Cheers all

 

[BenCooper]

Well, that's patently bollocks. Ask if anything on their website is fair game - it's "public domain" after all.

Just because something is on a website does not remove any copyright from it.

 

[Incognito]

Its irrelevant where the pictures are hosted if you haven't sold them royalty free they are yours, stick the invoice in.

If that was the case (what they are saying) whats to stop anyone going to photo stock sites and just copying and pasting!! Just because its in the public domain doesn't give anyone a right to it

 

[ZerO81]

It was also something to do with 'a link to a website at the bottom of the photo is not a watermark and we have the right to remove that to print the photos'

It all seems bollocks to me too, but they probably have more experience of this than me and i have no idea what the correct legal terms are for everything!

 

[Incognito]

LOL they have no right to remove anything unless its stated. If the link goes to your website and it says please help yourself to all my pictures royalty free for example.

 

[BenCooper]

They don't have the right to do anything - you own the copyright in the image. Removing your watermark (ignore their semantics bollocks) could be seen as deliberately attempting to erase evidence of the true copyright holder - they can't claim they didn't know who owned the image.

I'm sure there are others on here who can help with drafting a letter - but I'd just bung them an invoice and give them 14 days to pay up before you take it to the small claims court.

 

[ZerO81]

It does not say either way on my site if the photos can be taken or not, so my thinking is that they can't just take them because it does not explicitly say they can't.

It would be good to see a draft letter/info on what has happened to people when this has happened before.

 

[BenCooper]

Your thinking is right - you own the copyright always, you don't need to state it.

 

[Incognito]

It does not say either way on my site if the photos can be taken or not, so my thinking is that they can't just take them because it does not explicitly say they can't.

exactly they are just trying to fob you off, for which i would increase the invoice amount lol. As ben said stick an invoice in with payment details and terms, once that term passes and they haven't paid follow with a final demand and threat of Small claims court. If they still don't pay take them to small claims, you can do all the paperwork for that online.