Wednesday, 23 November 2011


Two posts recently have generated a considerable degree of interest and debate. There are still unanswered questions and gaps in the information relating to these events. There are also a number of facts which I feel are now indisputable, but see no good reason to further aggravate the situation.

I have been informed that the photograph on this post is subject to copyright, and a request has been made to remove it. Initially it had been my intention to therefore remove the photograph, but leave the post intact. 

However, although I do not currently have comments moderation in place I have kept a very close and regular eye on the comments and there have been today a number of comments placed anonymously which I think have been excessively abusive and misogynist. Had they been directed at me I would have let them stand. I have a thick skin. These posts were deleted promptly. The fact that they are being written leads me to the view that the posts are no longer generating just heated debate and their continued presence is becoming counterproductive.

I have therefore decided to introduce comments moderation, and remove the posts. Apologies to those whose comments have made cogent points.


  1. You have done the best of things Dr Z. In my opinion you were being given very inappropriate advice on copyright by people who simply do not know the law on this well enough. People who live and work in the world of copyright, photography, authorship know it better than people not professionally involved in that field. I have referred misuse of my images to Google and had pictures removed, and blogs taken down within 24 hours. On the other matter I was surprised you did not have moderation in place and you have acted appropriately for what my opinion is worth.

  2. Creative Commons!

  3. 22.48

    1 People can take self portraits. That's a fact.
    2 Photographers can assign their ownership. That's a fact,
    3 Fair use does not apply to photographs. That's the law (England and Wales).



  5. The work must by CC licensed by its owner.

  6. How sad that UC has now posted yet another diatribe about her being victimised by cyber bullies, police involvement and doctors receiving warnings from the police and has named this blog in that post. She has got a major act to grind and comes across very badly, doing a disservice to those who are being bullied.

  7. I copyright my photos and attribute all others I used. It is better to get from the big boys, Reuters, Getty, AP, AFP and attribute.Sometimes they demand their logo which is why I often use them.

    You can use this site to check who owns the rights:

    It is true that the photographer owns the rights nowadays whatever!

  8. "Google works on DMCA copyright laws. Check the website. Fair use - check out the Obama image currently being argued."

    Google accepts notices from other jurisdictions.

    Check the website:

    The form of notice specified below is consistent with the form suggested by the United States Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the text of which can be found at the US Copyright Office Website,, but we will respond to notices of this form from other jurisdictions as well.

    If the dispute over the Obama image relates to the one with Palin in it as well, it's a quite specific issue to do with the manipulation of an image taken by a photographer, who has objected, unsuccessfully, to Photoshop changes to his original image. Doctor RP may be referring to a different Obama image of course but is not specific.

    Doctor RP has not acknowledged her earlier factual error. Who for example owns the copyright to the pictures of herself that she posts on her various internet FB and Twitter accounts? She either owns the copyright or has permission to use the pictures. The picture that was at issue on this blog was not in the ownership of Dr Z and should not have been used without permission. Dr Z quite properly took it down when asked. He/she has to be given the best of credits for doing that.

  9. "Its a playground."

    Well that says it all. This playground doesn't have soft layer flooring. Who's still a doctor? Not Dr RP

    The 'enhanced' Obama photo issue will not be tested. It's gone too far world wide for that. Case law won't be set. It will remain US statute. That's punitive and strict. Fair use is set down. Using a whole photograph, not a thumbnail, not just a section and not using it in a journalistic review sense is against statute. People who seek deliberately to flout this at the expense of those who earn a living from the skill deserve no respect. That's why I applaud Dr Z for taking the image down. Has Dr RP taken images down when complaints have been made - I bet she has.

  10. It's OK, nobody will criticise you. Just be moderate in consumption Dr R 'Pluto' Pal, and add lots of chocolate just to balance the input. Don't pour it down your wonderbra though.