Reviews on tackle

Hi all
Just a quicky but when you review tackle on the fishmagic site can other tackle dealers/online shop use the review you have given.

Cheers
Stuart

Hi all let me make this a little clearer.
I have done some reviews on tackle for this site and this site only but I have found another company using my review to aid their sales.
Now do they need permission to do so as I feel that the review was only meant to be shown on this site and not for advertising purpose/commercial use.
Are my details safe on this site because at this moment in time it does not look so. Are they sold on?
Should I have been asked permission to allow this to happen?
I did not do this to make money for others just to help other anglers on this site decide on products they are interested in.
Please will someone respond to this or do I have to seek advice?

Kind regards
Stuart

I'll try and get hold of Graham and check with him.

Many thanks for that will wait to hear from you.

Kind regards
Stuart

A similar thing happened on Anglers Net to SB and Elton the owner challenged the site who had used it, on the grounds of copyright and they backed down. My understanding of copyright law is that if something goes out with your name on it and you haven’t plagiarised (nicked) it from somewhere else, it’s your sole copyright. For it to be used anywhere else other than where you intended it to be, permission from the publisher and the author must be sort, and a full acknowledgement to the site and author must be given for whole or part use of.

Effectively, the Internet is not exempt from the laws of copyright.

So anybody wishing to use the written word off this site should in the first instance contact Graham who would then discuss it with the author.

For those thinking of blagging something off this site, remember we now have firms of solicitors who will work for no win, no fee. This give those who may be infringed easier access to legal redress through the courts.
The watchwords are ask before you use!

It's all to do with the laws on copyright and Phil (above) is quite correct.

They are selecting a quoatation (or two) as part of an opinion that has been publicly stated. As far as I am aware anyone is allowed to quote from it providing it is for research purposes and open discussion. What they can't do is to reproduce the text and either a) claim it as someone else's text or b) publish it without the permission of the author (or original publisher if the rights have been passed to them - as is the case with FM).

However, I too have seen some of my comments from reviews published in magazines and I really don't know whether or
not permission was granted to reproduce them. The question is, do you have the financial clout to take them to Court? And the only area on which I disagree with Phil is this "no win-no fee" situation. It is offered with accidents because it can be covered by insurance, but I'm not so sure that solicitors will offer it in this kind of case.

Hi guys,

I work behind the scenes at FISHINGmagic with Graham.

I'm not sure where you've seen excerpts of user reviews published, but let me give you our line on the issue.

As Jay says, while you retain your copyright on any submissions you make to the forum, user review etc. the terms and conditions for using the site are that we can reproduce the content ourselves, or licence its reproduction in any medium. One way we might do this (as now with Castaway Tackle and Tackleshop) is to have the user reviews appear (in whole) next to products on a retailer's ecommerce site. This doesn't involve selling the content, it's simply a means by which we can promote the reviews to other anglers and help out more people making buying decisions.

At the moment we haven't licenced any manufacturers or retailers to use the reviews in print and so if they are doing so it could be taken as a copyright infringement. BUT, when in the past retailers of manufacturers use the reviews to promote their products we tend to see this as a recognition of the power and relevance of the reviews written by FM users on the site, and as an indication that they respect the views of our readers and see them as important. (Obviously as you hold the copyright, in the event of use unlicenced by FM you'd be perfectly within your rights to object in your own right).


If, however, content was being reproduced or used in an unsuitable manner, ie, misrepresented, then we at FM would want to hear about it and follow it up.

At the moment I don't really know how the content is being used, so if you could point me in the direction of where you've seen it that would help.

Thank you,

Maria

I don't know which it was, but both Stuart and I did a review on the Chimera Barbel rod.

Now I could him thus: In his review for FishingMagic website, Stuart Heard stated "This is as good as they come and for ?150 which is good price to pay for a rod capable of many years fishing no matter what you throw at it." and I would have to concur with that. However.....

That, as far as I understand, would be okay because I am attributing the quotation correctly and it is being used in open discussion or for research purposes. I might go on to disagree with something he said, for instance.

As far as I am really concerned (and was when I saw my comments used in an advert) I would be flattered that they considered my views so important as to quote me. And as Maria says, if it is going out to the broader angling public and drawing attention to this site and possibly the writer's talents, then all well and good. I think in Court you would have to prove some financial loss unless, as Maria says, it was "reproduced or used in an unsuitable manner".

It's a bit of a grey area, but an extremely interesting one.

from what I can see, the online tackle shops that basically pay for this site to remain open are using the reviews (good or bad) to attach to the products on their sites.

Stuarts review on FM of his Preston Pole protector is here.
FM review



And Tackle.co.uk have reproduced it here
Tackle.co.uk


I wouldn't say that's misrepresented or of detriment to Stuart.
You judge...

we don't pay for FM.
if FM are using some of our input to their service in order to get some financial support for the site then as long as it does not cause me any harm than i have no problems with it.

was permission granted to re-print pictures of the articles in question by the manufacturer i wonder?

I doubt it, but most manufacturers don't complain about free reviews do they.

Thanks for the replys and a big thanks to Jeff for the email. If it helps promote this site than thats ok as its one of the best sites about.
See you soon Jeff down the CA

Best regards
Stuart

Most of the pictures, and indeed the database of products with descriptions, in the user review section, have actually been supplied by Tackle.co.uk, Humberside Angling and Castaway Tackle.

Surely, if something is published in this forum, since anyone can read it, without being a member, that article is in the public domain, and anyone can use it.

I thought that to protect the copyright in something, it had to be marked with a copyright symbol, you know the little circle with a C in it, and the copyright owners name!

Copyright lasts for the lifetime of the author + 70 years

Andy, you may be right, but it (copyright) can only exist in something where copyright is claimed, I think.

If you take a photo then you have copyright in that photo unless you assign your rights to another party.

If you let a website use your photo then that is a license and it only extends to the use that you have licensed. No one visiting the website has the right to copy the photo unless you grant them a license to do so.

but as quoted above
"the terms and conditions for using the site are that we can reproduce the content ourselves, or licence its reproduction in any medium."
which is exactly what you agree to when you sign up for the forum.

It's a bit different for photographs, and much as Andy says, in that standard copyright laws for reproducing photographs in any media usually means that they are licenced for single use, although, even in magazines, nobody shouts breach of copyright if a picture is used more than once in the same issue, ie, on the contents page and in the article itself. And rarely does anyone object if that same photograph is used again sometime in that same publication. The line is drawn at the photograph appearing in another publication without the permission of the owner of the photograph.

That's standard copyright law for photographs, where no other agreement has been entered into, and FM wouldn't allow anyone else to use a contributor's photographs without the express permission of the contributor.