There’s always been a hard and clear line here when it comes to “fake,” “replica,” and pick-your-euphemism time pieces. You’ll never find them on the James Bond Watches website.
Fake watches speak volumes about those who own and trade in them — none of it positive.
Same holds true of using the images or writing of another without permission. The term, I believe, is copyright infringement or violation of intellectual property ownership. But let’s not get technical about terminology.
It’s stealing. Period. And owners are taking legal action. That’s a good thing. Moreover, James Bond Watches is doing what we can to advance the cause and efforts.
The image above is mine. That may come as a shock to many folks, because it’s been so frequently copied and Posted and otherwise used without my foreknowledge or permission. The fact that I, myself, have put them out on the Internet (or anywhere else for that matter) does not make them fair game. The fact that Person X sees that Person Y has Posted them on the ABC Forum, and there they sit, does not mean that Person X automatically has permission to do likewise.
The fact that I have not made a notation such as © 2006, 2008 Dell Deaton, All Rights Reserved, does not mean that they are not fully protected by United States (where I am) and international laws.
Maybe I haven’t been so aggressive in protecting my images. In some cases that supports the notion that I’d much rather have the image of an authentic Omega, Seiko, Rolex, or other watch appear to represent text about an authentic watch brand than a random picture of questionable pedigree found via Search. I’m also quite familiar with editorial and fair use arguments.
There’s no question about the wrong discussed here
Some folks feign innocence with claims of “Fair Use Doctrine” (which, by the way, is a defense, not a right). But there’s a big difference between using a 300-pixel (or smaller) screen capture or reference image for educational purposes, and splashing grand images that fill computer monitors to position yourself as the People Magazine of the Internet. And that’s before we get to private images, illegally obtained: You can’t claim “Fair Use” and publish pictures of a woman undressing that were serepiticiously obtained by peaking a camera through your neighbor’s bedroom window.
Nor, say, um — of a photo similarly taken of an Ian Fleming portrait while on display at a gallery in London.
Photographs owned by Getty Images have started to appear on the Internet. The Imperial War Museum acquired some of these for distribution as part of its Ian Fleming Centenary exhibit promotions. But those are readily identifiable.
Otherwise, if you see Getty images, or merely see links to them from a Forum you frequent or a Blog to which you subscribe, you are witnessing copyright infringement. I like to give people the benefit of a doubt, although it’s hard to believe anyone who owns, operates, and/or moderates such a place on the Web wouldn’t know this. So I’m suggesting you nicely call it to the administrator’s attention, politely asking that the images and/or link be removed immediately.
Why would anyone be reluctant to “do the right thing” here? Because content builds traffic, and that makes a site more valuable in selling advertising or, for that matter, in being sold, period (remember the dot-coms?). The logic makes for a perfect circle, if you stop to think about it: They want to keep the images and links on their site for the same reason that the true copyright holder wants them removed. They’re valuable.
In working with Getty Images a few weeks ago to facilitate proper licensing of images for an upcoming publication, I was told by a member of their staff that they are actually obligated by contract with the owners of the images they represent to vigorously pursue any and all violations of which they become aware.
Don’t be surprised if you start seeing a number of Ian Fleming photographs in particular start to disappear from places on the Web. The places themselves may disappear as well, if they “wait to be asked.”
True fans of Ian Fleming
In 1962, Ian Fleming commissioned his friend Charles Amherst Villiers to paint a portrait of him to appear as a frontispiece facing the title page on a limited 250-book run of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. I saw Mr. Fleming’s personal copy of this edition during my visit to the Lilly Library at Indiana University in conjunction with the Ian Fleming Centenary, May 28, 2008.
It’s a spectacular image.
After further research, I found that the original oil is proudly displayed at the National Portrait Gallery, St Martin’s Place, London. Unfortunately, photographs made of that image without permission have been posted to the Internet — in clear violation of copyright, policy, and the terms to which visitors agree when viewing this and other works.
Those who have read the original James Bond novels and followed even a little bit of the background know of the Fleming-Villiers relationship. Casino Royale pays homage to that through references in descriptions of the 007 Bentley there. So beyond any empathy one might imagine that Fleming himself, as an author, would have had for intellectual property protections and the damages consequent to violations, it seems to me the height of disrespect to him when anyone posts or links to these images.
Violating sites’ motives are nothing more than self-serving, to build traffic on their websites at any cost: Or, rather, to maximize their own profits at a high cost to the rightful owners.
Notwithstanding, JamesBondWatches.com is supporting National Portrait Gallery efforts to help those with less altruistic motives to “do the right thing” by passing along communications that some sites may already have received. And others should anticipate.
Regarding cease-and-desist communications, I’ve attached a couple of documents we have put together, with guidance from BAPLA (British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies …). The first is an initial ‘friendly’ notice, which we use when we think one or more of our images have been used without permission. The second is a ‘takedown’ notice, used if we receive no satisfactory response to the first letter (to my knowledge, we’ve only had to use the second once or twice in the last few years, as most people respond to the first letter).
Sorry for the tough read here, gang. Even sorrier that some have forced the issue to make this necessary. But one of my goals in undertaking this James Bond Watches project was to raise the bar on the subject, soup to nuts. That’s not always easy, but, then, doing what’s right sometimes means standing up to the hard issues.
Thank you for considering these thoughts — not just in selection of the websites you visit, but also in your patronage of the advertisers that back them.
Comments