http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0610stwc.html?i=flindex&d=2006_10

the group that were chanting 'kill the jews, kill the socialists' if there was any such group, would be hizb ut tahir or a similar group. There is no hezbullah contingent on british demonstrations. Hizbullah is a national liberation movement, and it is fighting a just war against an aggressor. Face the basic truth: Israel is to blame. Not Jews, but as israel is associated with and sees itself as the state for all jewish people, speaks for the jews, and carries out vicious massacres and calls all those who oppose it militarily terrorists, and those who criticise it nazi sympathisers. But this ruse is no longer working.....After the brutal lebanon attacks, that there should be a rise in anti semitism among arabs and muslims is not surprising,tho still wrong. What do you think would happen??? it is the task of socialists to disentangle anti semitism, which is simply a form of racism, from anti zionism, which is opposition to a political ideology. Israel has no right to exist.

I don't understand how trying to use copyright over a photo of a t-shirt for financial gain helps the anti-war movement. It definitely fits into the capitalist ideology of protecting intellectual property.

I also wonder why those criticising the Stop The War campaign are so hostile towards a demo calling for Isreal to stop invading Lebanon. Are these critics on the side of Bush and the Zionists?

Stop the War Video:
 http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null

However low my opinion of the SWP, the original post seems a blatant anti-semitic/fascist propaganda intervention. As such, worthy only of the 'dustbin of history'...

swp are scum not socialists

galloway should convert to islam and fuck off to pakistan and take the rest of them with him.

Just why did the socialist movement oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Life was hell in Afghanistan under the Taliban and life was also hell in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Did you not read about the mass graves which were discovered in Iraq containing up to 300,000 massacered people? The Taliban enslaved its people and Saddam terrorised and murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people especially the Kurds, Shias and Marsh arabs. At least now both countries are democracies with free speach, freedom of the press and all the other freedoms we enjoy. The insurgents are just that, fanatical muslims who don't like the idea of democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan. And Shia and Sunni extremists who are fanning the flames of sectarian hatred.
 http://www.midwestheroes.com

A few points:

1) Asking someone to acknowledge that you're using a photo they've taken probably does fit into the "capitalist ideology of protecting ideological property". However, it would probably also fit into the general principles that most societies (communist or otherwise) would base themselves around. Having the decency to acknowledge someone is called "not being a tw@t". Anyway, its not a crucial issue particularly...

2) Detailed debates on the wider Israel and Lebanon issue have been taking place on revleft and libcom and is clearly controversial. Anyway, the basic truth is not that "Israel is to blame". Neither those ruling in Israel nor in Lebanon have the interests of the working class at heart. A victory for Hezbollah or the IDF is not a victory for any type of anti-capitalist movement. Our role should not be to cheerlead for either ruling class but to continue arguing for a genuinely internationalist position. Sure, it's possible to say that Israel acted disproportionately, or that the original kidnappings were unwise given the situation in the Middle East. Ultimately, however, whichever side of the argument you take on this is not a position that gets to the cause of matters - the role of capitalism (which is a position I'd guess most on Indymedia would take as given). If capitalism is the problem, then how does taking the side of the "more oppressed capitalist" or the "oasis of democracy capitalist" solve the root causes rather than prop up the system?

3) I'd stress that this position does not entail a lack of concern for those suffering. It is a position that seeks to remove suffering to the working class by getting rid of capitalism. It also would probably cause less deaths that by repeatedly cheerleading or "offering solidarity" to whichever country is "more oppressed" so that they can get killed.

4) In addition, this is not an argument for Bush or Blair. Since when has "the left" bought into the crap black-or-white arguments that we are offered to ensure that we don't rock the boat? Since when has genuine internationalism been supporting the right-wing of capital?

5) You are right that "Israel has no right to exist". However, if you're in any way anti-capitalist, neither does Lebanon.

er would that be the same pic that appeared on a well-known copyleft publishing site?
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/346967.html

"as you did not ask us for permission to photograph our specially commissioned T-shirt, we request that you pay us £100 for doing so without authorisation. We have removed the image from our website and we insist that you remove it from your website. Under no circumstances are you to seek financial gain by using Stop the War designs or images now or in the future. "

 http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0610stwc.html?i=flindex&d=2006_10

plus it does look like the image was taken from here:
 http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcvallee/sets/72157594227460583/
(black and white)

and used here:
 http://www.stopwar.org.uk/new/kh.htm
(black and white)

and not from here
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/london/2006/08/346967.html
(not a black and white image)

unless made it black and white? but why make it black and white?

does Indymedia have to pay the £100 as well?

[quote]
pic nicked?
17.08.2006 14:33

er would that be the same pic that appeared on a well-known copyleft publishing site?
[/quote]

Yes it's the image, by the same author. However just because somethings published on a copyleft site, doesn't mean it's copybroken (out of copyright / public domain).

All Marc want's is credit for what he does very well.

If I came on here and said I orginised a demo/protest/occupation someone else did people would (quite rightly) go mad at me. So why should Marc who is a freelance photojornalist not be allowed the credit he's due?

Is it because of the C word? if it is what do you think of the GNU copyright license  http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html thats aimed to stop big companys selling work given for free?

if STW did get it from Indymedia then by claiming copyright over the image and demanding cash for taking pic of a t-shirt would mean there have broken "copyleft" rules?

"Copyleft is a play on the word copyright and is the practice of using copyright law to remove restrictions on the distribution of copies and modified versions of a work for others. It requires the same freedom to be preserved in modified versions."
 http://digg.com/tech_news/If_copyright_won_t_work_try_copyleft

The pictures on indymedia were credited to Marc anyway. Also, Marc has a good history of allowing non-profit and anti-cap organisations use his photo's as long as he's credited. That's understanderable. He's a photographer and he needs his work to be recognised so that there's a better chance of magazines, etc. using his photo's. It's his skill and personal style he sells and he needs that to be recognised otherwise he'd be on the dole. That's why he needs to know if someone wants to use a photo, especially if they're going to crop it in such an ugly way.
If Stop the War had just emailed him they could have had it for free. Instead, they acted like a bunch of arrogant fools and decided that they had an automatic right to take anything on the web and then butcher for their needs. This shouldn't be too surprising to anyone used to working with the SWP who seem to have an attitude to most things that it's either a) theirs or b)imperialist or c)secterianly controlled by someone else.

"the group that were chanting 'kill the jews, kill the socialists' if there was any such group, would be hizb ut tahir or a similar group. There is no hezbullah contingent on british demonstrations."

take a look at any of the photos from the 05/08/06 march. hezbolah flags all over, with chants of "we are all Hizbollah!".

Yes, the chant we are all hezbullah was used, but was everyone who used it in hezbullah??? When the wtc was attacked it was a phrase we are all new yorkers, but are we all new yorkers?? obviously not, it is only a phrase used to express support for a group by showing our identification with them. In that sense, yes, we are all hezbullah, as we are proud of the hezbullah;s abiltiy to fight the israeli 'defence' forces. Finally, no no fascism, no to zionism. Death to israel.

"Yes it's the image, by the same author. However just because somethings published on a copyleft site, doesn't mean it's copybroken (out of copyright / public domain).

All Marc want's is credit for what he does very well."

its not out of copyright but it is copyleft. that means people can use it however they like, as long as the product is also copyleft. marc doesnt just want credit, he wants £100 for the use of a copyleft image. respect to marc for making his work copyleft, but trying to charge for it when it gets used by an organization he doesnt like just stinks.

One lovely chant on a demo went like this "Kill kill kill the socialists, kill kill kill the Jews". How Lovely the marriage is...


Of course you have the sound file to prove this. No of course, whenever you got your mouth from around Bush and Olmerts cock, you were too busy wanking over poictures of dead black babies to even notice the demo.

Why does the BNP support Israel, given their well-documented history of trying to exterminate anything Jewish?

P.S. You might have noticed that your new-found bosom-buddies lost the war. Is your master-race becoming diluted?

It is clear to all that StWC took a black and white image from one of Marc's sites and not the colour image on Indymedia. StWC seem to be trying to use the "Indymedia/copyleft" issue as a way to get themselves out of this mess. Anyone can see that "copyleft terms" for posting things on here are not at all clear and need working on. So do we let StWC treat someone like this? Or do we sort things out? Think about it... Why would some one like Marc ever come near Indymedia again?

I must make a point to copy all this wankers work fuck it up and re distribute it free !!!
By the way my new What ever happened to Luther Blissett / Che fine ha fatto Luther Blissett DVD is out, by that I mean circulating freely, the only way of getting a copy is to er copy it ..
not many copies in the UK and not the sort of thing your average SWP twat will be up 4.

LB (is back)

- its a "2 + 2 = 4" thing
even if you look at it as "3 + 1"
PS - MUCH SENSE - AMIDST THE DIGRESSING - IN THE COMMENT STREAM + PIECES TITLED " IF THE SMALL PEACES AINT WORKING TRY BIGGER PEACES "
watch THAT space
net watchers

Spot on mate. At last, somebody on Indymedia talking some sense!

The text below is from the "Freelance" (London Freelance Branch of the NUJ)

"STW now claim that they took the photo from www.indymedia.org.uk and that images posted there fall under the "copyleft" licence.

Even if true, this merely makes it worse for them. Three of the essential features of the "copyleft" licence are that:

* All works re-used under it must be credited;
* commercial use is not authorised; and
* a statement of the copyleft licence terms must be presented with the re-use, so that all these conditions are imposed on further re-users.

The last point is the entire point of copyleft."

 http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0610stwc.html?i=flindex&d=2006_10

Copyleft is a term you're likely to hear a lot more about in the future as more people embrace the concept of copylefting their material, whether written, audio or visual material. So what does it mean?

The easiest way to understand what it means is to firstly understand how copyright came about and what it means.

COPYRIGHT
The concept of copyright was first introduced in Britain and brought in to force by the Statute Of Anne in 1710 (  http://www.copyrighthistory.com/anne.html). This gave authors certain protections over their work which had previously been in the hands of the publishing houses. It also allowed certain freedoms over the use of a work after it had been published and sold, which again the publishing houses had previously controlled. In 1886 the concept of copyright was made international by the Berne Convention (  http://www.wipo.int/clea/docs/en/wo/wo001en.htm) which set an international standard between nations. The Berne Convention is still in force and is the basis of all modern copyright law. Under the terms of the convention once a work is completed and released into the public domain via some form of medium, book, film, website etc., the creator of the work is granted an all exclusive right to the work and any other works derived from it. The author doesn't have to apply for the work to be copyrighted, it is automatically granted copyright once it is made available to others.

Copyright laws can have subtle differences depending on the country and origin of the author, particularly concerning the duration in years that a work is copyrighted for. This can make the whole field of copyright confusing. However the basic rights granted to an author or creator are that they alone can:

* make and sell copies of the work
* import or export the work
* make derivative works
* publicly perform the work
* sell or assign these rights to others

There are some exceptions to the exclusive rights held by the author. In the United States this comes under the heading of Fair Use while in the UK there is a more restrictive right of Fair Dealing. What they both allow is the restricted use of parts of a work for criticism, review or educational purposes.

ANTI-COPYRIGHT
Anti-copyright is largely a political statement as it has no actual basis in law. It's not recognised as a legitimate way of distributing material. It does however allow the author or authors to exercise a moral right to denounce the concept of property accorded under the Berne Convention. Many anarchist works and publications use an anti-copyright notice in this way. A typical anti-copyright notice will say something along the lines of:

@nti-copyright. Please distribute this material freely.

What the above doesn't do is remove the creators rights under the Berne Convention. In law the work is still copyrighted and the author maintains the rights accorded by copyright law. A copyright waiver which addresses each of the exclusive rights such as the right of attribution, naming the original author or linking back to the article can be created but seldom is.

There's a lot of confusion concerning anti-copyright and its legality. For instance by waiving all rights is the author leaving their work open to corporate abuse, or to be twisted out of context by critics without the right of reply? Can someone else claim an unedited work as their own? The answer is no because their property rights are still intact. Although it would be morally difficult to exercise them having in theory already denounced them. An interesting dilemma which brings us to the concept of copyleft.

COPYLEFT
Copyleft originated in the Open Source movement where computer programmes are released to peers so they can be worked on and improved in a collaborative way. A well known example of copyleft in action is Linux, a free open source project which can be built upon as long as the terms of the original copyleft license are incorporated into any improvements or derivative works.

What copyleft does is to offer the original creator and the authors of any derivative works the opportunity to exercise some rights as opposed to all rights. Copyleft has now spread beyond the computing world to the creative community at large. Examples of copyleft licenses include the GNU General Public License - GPL (  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), the GNU Lesser GPL (  http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html) and the free ShareAlike licenses issued by Creative Commons (  http://www.creativecommons.org).

This document is an example of how copyleft works in practice. This article and all news articles on yozzee.com are licensed using a creative commons copyleft license. In this case it is the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license (  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/). Under the terms of the license you the reader are free to:

* copy, distribute, display and perform the work
* make derivative works

However the following conditions apply:

* Attribution: you must give the original author credit
* Noncommercial: you may not use this work for commercial purposes
* Share Alike: if you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one.

Unlike a anti-copyright notice copyleft is recognised in law and is enforceable. However any of the conditions can be waived by the copylefter if you get permission. For example if someone wanted to use this article or part of it for an anarchist publication or website I would happily waive all the conditions. If however a mainstream or corporate body wanted to use any of it I would maintain all the conditions and ensure credit was given and that it was distributed using a copyleft license and for non profit use.

Now can you think of a good reason not to copyleft your work? It's free, it's easy to do, it maintains the integrity of your work by ensuring it remains free and for non profit use, and not least it directly challenges the existing copyright laws and their emphasis on private property rights.

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/07/295191.html
yozzee | 23.07.2004 18:57

“COPYLEFT or COPYRIGHT?”

It’s a shame that a debate about Copyleft is mixed up with posts about the SWP and that some folks who have made comments that if said in a pub over a drink could end up in a right old mess! (Have you seen the size of me?) But being called a “wanker” on Indymedia is not such a big deal but come on guys!

Anyway…

On Wikipedia (the free encyclopedia) it says that “Copyleft relies on copyright law to undo the automatic prohibitions on copying and impose a perpetual, irrevocable, freedom to use the work."

My understanding is that it would work something like this:

>>>

You are free:

to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work

Under the following conditions:

Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.

Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.

Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder."

>>>

For more look at:  http://creativecommons.org

I could add a Copyleft license like the one above to all my images and people could then copy and use my work for free (as long as the conditions are followed) which as a socialist fits in with my views on life and getting good images of protests out to people and letting people use my work in a positive way would and is great. This is why I have posted some 20 images on Indymedia with links to more over the last six months and why I have let loads of sites and blogs use my images for free over that time!

This would work for me if only anti-capitalist, anti-war, socialist websites and non-profit blogs used the images under such a license.

But here is the problem I have with Copyleft.

Over the last year a well known fascist website has used many (31 last count) of my images. If I had used a Copyleft license for all of these images (like the one above) and if this fascist website had followed the conditions to the letter then I would be in a position of not only seeing my work on such a site (and not been able to do anything about it) but also seeing my name (the credit) on this site!

I have looked for a Copyleft license that would stop such groups from using my images but at the same time would let anti-capitalist, anti-war, socialist websites and non-profit blogs use my images.

I have not found one.

I ask all of you on here who have far more knowledge on Copyleft then me if you can come up with something that would work I would look at it and if it fits then I would go for it.

But until then I will do what I have always done which is to hold on to my Copyright and when asked let folks use my images on a case by case basis without a fee.

COPYRIGHT & COPYLEFT(ISH)
 http://www.protestphoto.co.uk/copyright-copyleft.html

[This is for historical reference: Indymedia are engaged in suppressing my right to reply to those comments aim at me. Indymedia deleted my comment below in a separate newswire in which I deliberately place a hope to engage in discussions and a chance to put my view across. Sadly my view it seem deem as unsuitable as I may have breach some minor infringement as stated by indymedia. I am now force to put these comments where they will not be seen or read and hence there will no longer been any hope of a chance of any further or useful discussions. Please see below for my comments].


Sorry that I have not be able to reply to the number of comments added to my initial comment I made some time ago.

Please see link below  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/348552.html?c=on

The first point that I would like to add. Is the continuing use of the term Zionism is an offensive degenerate term for Jewish people? I am not Jewish nor do I know any, but the way the term Zionism is spouted in Indymedia when you clearly mean the Jewish People is clearly done with spite. I sure some people here will come up with some form of historical evidence. If I were to use a similar claim on any other race or group I would rightly and my comments would be booted off this site.


Point 2, "I also wonder why those criticizing the Stop The War campaign are so hostile towards a demo calling for Israel to stop invading Lebanon. Are these critics on the side of Bush and the Zionists?"

I am also against random terrorist acts. What you expect realistically that Israelis to do? Sit back and watch what happen around them?


Point 3, "the original post seems a blatant anti-semitic/fascist propaganda intervention."

A cheap shot with no evidence to back your claim. See above comments point one. I am neither an anti-semitic, at which point I was complaining about and a fascist.


Point 4, "At least now both countries are democracies with free speech, freedom of the press and all the other freedoms we enjoy."

Depending on the political viewpoint you may have, democracies is a lie and only serve to the wishes of the well off.


Point 5, "Internationalism" by Question Mark, I agree with although I would question point 5 in the article but that is my own person view point and not an attack.


Point 6, "take a look at any of the photos from the 05/08/06 march. Hezbollah flags all over, with chants of "we are all Hezbollah!". Is were my original comment stem from since when were "We all Hezbollah?"

I am certainly not and I sure SWP aren't too. It is my frustration that these demos which are principle organize by the SWP are being highjack to suit anti-semitic ideology. If any organization were organizing a similar demo I too still be saying the very same points.


Point 7, "Yes, the chant we are all Hezbollah was used, but was everyone who used it in Hezbollah??? When the wtc was attacked it was a phrase we are all new yorkers, but are we all new yorkers?? obviously not, it is only a phrase used to express support for a group by showing our identification with them. In that sense, yes, we are all Hezbollah, as we are proud of the Hezbollah;s ability to fight the israeli 'defence' forces. Finally, no no fascism, no to zionism. Death to israel." Need I say any more?

This is a demo to stop a war not encourage it, if you need any evidence about anti-semitic ideology you need not need to look far. My other concern with I hope it is unfounded that SWP will do anything to recruit new members, even it it is the wrong type of member. Please say I am wrong.


Point 8, "Of course you have the sound file to prove this. No of course, whenever you got your mouth from around Bush and Olmerts cock, you were too busy wanking over pictures of dead black babies to even notice the demo. Why does the BNP support Israel, given their well-documented history of trying to exterminate anything Jewish? P.S. You might have noticed that your new-found bosom-buddies lost the war. Is your master-race becoming diluted".

I have to say that I shock by the level of filth that came out of his person mouth. You can not know me and there for isn't worth replying too other than you could just read point 7. Anti-semitic anyone?


Point 9, "Spot on mate. At last, somebody on Indymedia talking some sense!" Cheers mate.