Is anyone familiar with this brand?
Product of the company "Montres BD s.a" containing the rare Peseux 260 (about 3000 pieces)
It was designed for chronometer competitions and had blue Nivarox 1 spring opposed to earlier version with steel hairspring.
Nice looking and historicaly important watch. Only few are known and this one is property of collector SteveG.
http://ninanet.net/watches/others04/Mediums/mbeba.html

 

Yes, I am familiar with the brand. I also know Steve.

Did you not see the copyright assertions at the bottom of the pages of his website? It would be much better form to post a single photo, and link to his site, rather than reproducing multiple photos without his permission.

 

Sorry, tought "property of collector SteveG" would be enough. Link is included now.

 

Why do you think that it is acceptable to reproduce multiple large images that were taken by someone, with copyrights asserted on the website?

 

Like I said, thought naming "property of collector SteveG" is acceptable for sharing pictures. Made a mistake for not reading text on the bottom and edited my post. Should I delete it or?

 

As I suggested, reasonable etiquette would, in my view, to delete all but one photo, and retain the link.

It's not that Steve would be likely to take legal action, but in order to protect the OF owners and show reasonable sensitivity, it is not a good idea to reproduce copyrighted images wholesale.

 

@Tony C. Another day, another lesson.

 

Thank you!

Now, those Be-Ba are, as you suggest, both relatively rare and desirable. I had a chance to buy one years ago in Switzerland, and made the mistake of passing it up. An interesting line of research that you may enjoy would be to find other manufacturers that used the Peseux 260.

 

You are coming full steam for this guy... He isn't claiming any images to be his own nor is he using them for profit. He even cited where they were sourced with a provided link (granted the link was provided after your comment). He is using them in conjunction with "is anyone familiar with this brand" as well as sharing what he found interesting. This is done countless times a day without this kind of pushback. This forum is full of images that are copyrighted/intellectual property. All of the photos in the countless threads asking for opinions on a watch listed by auction houses or independent websites are owned and copyrighted by those auction houses and independent websites. Even Omega has their copyright at the bottom of their website and when you go to their T&C's has this



Yet, this forum is full of images pulled from their website.

 

I never suggested otherwise. These images were taken by the owner of the website, which is often not the case. They are large, very high-quality macro images, with copyrights asserted. I'm talking about etiquette, and believe that the owners of the OF would agree that it is not good form to reproduce such images wholesale.

Furthermore, Omega, eBay and other auction sites largely benefit from reproductions, which is why they don't push back.

 

Again, it is the same for all of the independent watch stores that produce their own high res images of the watches they are selling.

You say

Except when they don't. How many times have you seen seen "help me with this" or "give me an evaluation" threads where images were taken from other websites and no links or names were provided? This happens countless times a day where a user never links to or cites the source as they don't want someone else to get it. How does this benefit producer of the images? No one knows where they came from and they are still copyrighted.

If you are going to critique this user for using images from a site from a person you happen to know, you should use this same critique on the countless other members that recycle copyrighted images.

And to counter your statement on they "benefit from it"- your friend is running a very well created and knowledgable site. I would never have found out about his platform if it weren't for this thread. I found his work to be very intriguing and can use it as a resource of knowledge. I would say he benefited from his exposure, wouldn't you?

 

I've made the distinctions, so your suggestion not applicable. If someone else were to reproduce a whole set of images from a personal, protected website, I would make the same suggestion.

I can't answer for him, but given that he is a private collector, and that the time and energy put into his site was a labor of love, I'm guessing that he would not want people to reproduce its contents wholesale.

It appears that our basic difference of perspective is this: I believe that image copyrights should be respected to some extent, while you believe that it is fine to completely ignore them.

 

Your rationale is very . This forum is full of years worth of "copyrighted" images, which you seemingly deem to be acceptable because the (un-cited) original sources "benefit from it," yet this isn't acceptable because you happen know the person that took the images... Despite the OP giving full credit to the owner...

You're right. I do not think it's okay that you fully criticized @Zapatta for acting no differently on this forum than the countless other members that create similar threads, which do not receive the same treatment.

I am bowing out as I can see this going absolutely no where.

 

This seems like fair use under copyright rules.

@SpikiSpikester , would you offer an opinion?

 

I see that reading comprehension is not your strong suit. I have repeatedly made the point that a wholesale reproduction is over the line. I would always argue that a single photo and link is reasonable use, and appropriate etiquette.

 

It's your opinion that "a wholesale reproduction is over the line" and "a single photo and link is reasonable use, and appropriate etiquette" If the OF site owners take legal advice on whether and to what extent the posting of third party images is an example of "fair use" of copyright material or decide that the forum rules on images need revision then I'll comply with their rules.

You are of course, quite free to adhere to your own standards, as long as they do not run contrary to OF rules. What your do not have the authority to do is to impose your opinions or rules on others. That's reserved for the site owners.

 

I haven't "imposed" any rules on anyone. I expressed my opinion, and asked the OP what his interpretation was. He was under no compulsion to make any changes.

 

But he did make changes after you berated him more than once. Best action here is to put down your cudgel and let the issue lie. We get your point.