Anyone remember this fan on Sat..

[Fish Fingers]

Quote[/b] (CANV @ Oct. 05 2005,14:50)]im all up for some footy banter and crowd abuse.. im more than happy to see drunken buffoonery at football.. and even a bit of excessive swearing.. watching people lose it is also great fun .. its all part of watching live footy..  sticking some blokes picture with his bird or missus over a load of websites after the event isnt the done thing in my book .. if he was dishing some out then it sounds like he should be commended , as the rest of them are slated for being a bit SSHHH ..  im sure a photo from his angle at the shrimpers fans would have produced a similar effect if the score had been reversed..  if your happy for people to snap you, your missus or family then stick it on websites without your permisson and then  take the p%&s then carry on..

o o over reaction

 

[The Artful Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (CANV @ Oct. 05 2005,15:28)]im not that bothered..  but if someone took a photo of any of my family n stuck it on websites i would be..  as im sure any of you would if say, a rather unflattering picture of your bird/mum/sister appeared on the orient site..
like i say if you think its fun then carry on , hopefully your sense of humour will be as robust if it happens to you  

..

In a way you're right.
no I wouldn't mind if someone snapped me.
the only reason i took the pic as others will vouch was that he was goading us good and proper.
perhaps I should blur out the rest of the munch bunch in future

Point taken though and it would land me in trouble i'm sure if it carried on.

 

[J]

;ioio

 

[Smiffy]

Quote[/b] (CS J @ Oct. 05 2005,16:01)];ioio

que?

 

[shrimperman]

to be fair to them, they havnt been reeled in atall and instead are joining in abusing him!

 

[jokercomedyclub]

that is the clown who had the cheek to shout out pikey southenders half way through the game ! muppet..................

 

[Kenny]

that photo looks like it could have easily been lifted from Chavscum.co.uk

 

[Spikey Shrimper]

I did him shout to someone at our end 'if i'm fat, then your ugly!! ha ha ha!'

 

[Desert Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (CANV @ Oct. 05 2005,14:50)]im all up for some footy banter and crowd abuse.. im more than happy to see drunken buffoonery at football.. and even a bit of excessive swearing.. watching people lose it is also great fun .. its all part of watching live footy..  sticking some blokes picture with his bird or missus over a load of websites after the event isnt the done thing in my book .. if he was dishing some out then it sounds like he should be commended , as the rest of them are slated for being a bit SSHHH ..  im sure a photo from his angle at the shrimpers fans would have produced a similar effect if the score had been reversed..  if your happy for people to snap you, your missus or family then stick it on websites without your permisson and then  take the p%&s then carry on..

Erm...I'm with you on this one Canv. Sorry to sound like Victor Mature but if I was the bloke in question and that was my missus, I would be looking for whoever posted this...and it wouldn't be to shake your hand.

 

[TrueBlue]

Quote[/b] (The Bloke In The Pram Shop @ Oct. 05 2005,18:47)]

Quote[/b] (CANV @ Oct. 05 2005,14:50)]im all up for some footy banter and crowd abuse.. im more than happy to see drunken buffoonery at football.. and even a bit of excessive swearing.. watching people lose it is also great fun .. its all part of watching live footy.. sticking some blokes picture with his bird or missus over a load of websites after the event isnt the done thing in my book .. if he was dishing some out then it sounds like he should be commended , as the rest of them are slated for being a bit SSHHH .. im sure a photo from his angle at the shrimpers fans would have produced a similar effect if the score had been reversed.. if your happy for people to snap you, your missus or family then stick it on websites without your permisson and then take the p%&s then carry on..

Erm...I'm with you on this one Canv. Sorry to sound like Victor Mature but if I was the bloke in question and that was my missus, I would be looking for whoever posted this...and it wouldn't be to shake your hand.

Who cares! its light hearted!

 

[jokercomedyclub]

GET A LIFE !!!!!!!!!!! ITS A BIT OF HARMLESS FUN !!!!!!!!!!

 

[A loyal supporter]

Doesnt it controvene laws about image ownership and the such like?

Just a thought and probably not - A legal eagle moderator wouldn't have let that slip would he?!?!

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (A loyal supporter @ Oct. 05 2005,20:02)]Doesnt it controvene laws about image ownership and the such like?

Just a thought and probably not - A legal eagle moderator wouldn't have let that slip would he?!?!

Don't think so; I think I'm right in saying that none of us has intellectual property rights in our own image per se unless we have specifically entered into a contract in respect of our own image rights.

So, for example, Becks may have created a special company (e.g. David Beckham Ltd), and then set up a contract whereby David Beckham Limited possesses the full IP rights in one Mr. David Beckham. DB Ltd can then sell those IP rights to Man U, Pepsi, Adidas, Gilette... etc.

Unless this bloke has some sort of similar agreement with Matalan or Elizabeth Duke, then I should think that Artful (and SZ) is on fairly safe ground...

 

[overseas shrimper]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Oct. 06 2005,12:11)]

Quote[/b] (A loyal supporter @ Oct. 05 2005,20:02)]Doesnt it controvene laws about image ownership and the such like?

Just a thought and probably not - A legal eagle moderator wouldn't have let that slip would he?!?!

Don't think so; I think I'm right in saying that none of us has intellectual property rights in our own image per se  unless we have specifically entered into a contract in respect of our own image rights.

So, for example, Becks may have created a special company (e.g. David Beckham Ltd), and then set up a contract whereby David Beckham Limited possesses the full IP rights in one Mr. David Beckham.  DB Ltd can then sell those IP rights to Man U, Pepsi, Adidas, Gilette... etc.

Unless this bloke has some sort of similar agreement with Matalan or Elizabeth Duke, then I should think that Artful (and SZ) is on fairly safe ground...

Not sure if it works to this extent, Matt, but for filming purposes, anyone clearly recognisable on the footage to be used has to sign a release form or agree on record that their image can be used.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Oct. 06 2005,11:11)]Unless this bloke has some sort of similar agreement with Matalan or Elizabeth Duke, then I should think that Artful (and SZ) is on fairly safe ground...

Not to mention Tennents Super, and his lifestyle gurus:

Live in style - Gillingham style

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Quote[/b] (overseas shrimper @ Oct. 06 2005,11:16)]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Oct. 06 2005,12:11)]

Quote[/b] (A loyal supporter @ Oct. 05 2005,20:02)]Doesnt it controvene laws about image ownership and the such like?

Just a thought and probably not - A legal eagle moderator wouldn't have let that slip would he?!?!

Don't think so; I think I'm right in saying that none of us has intellectual property rights in our own image per se  unless we have specifically entered into a contract in respect of our own image rights.

So, for example, Becks may have created a special company (e.g. David Beckham Ltd), and then set up a contract whereby David Beckham Limited possesses the full IP rights in one Mr. David Beckham.  DB Ltd can then sell those IP rights to Man U, Pepsi, Adidas, Gilette... etc.

Unless this bloke has some sort of similar agreement with Matalan or Elizabeth Duke, then I should think that Artful (and SZ) is on fairly safe ground...

Not sure if it works to this extent, Matt, but for filoming purposes, anyone clearly recognisable on the footage to be used has to sign a release form or agree on record that their image can be used.

Dont think so... or no crowd photos could appear in the papers, and the old BBC news reporting favourite of walking down a high street towards a camera would be outlawed...

 

[The Flying Scotsman]

I think Ground Regulations state that you do give permission to be filmed, photographed etc...

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (overseas shrimper @ Oct. 06 2005,11:16)]Not sure if it works to this extent, Matt, but for filming purposes, anyone clearly recognisable on the footage to be used has to sign a release form or agree on record that their image can be used.

Hmm... but we're not talking about your dodgy top-shelf Maltese videos here, OS...

 

[overseas shrimper]

Quote[/b] (Spaceman Spiff @ Oct. 06 2005,12:18)]

Quote[/b] (overseas shrimper @ Oct. 06 2005,11:16)]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Oct. 06 2005,12:11)]

Quote[/b] (A loyal supporter @ Oct. 05 2005,20:02)]Doesnt it controvene laws about image ownership and the such like?

Just a thought and probably not - A legal eagle moderator wouldn't have let that slip would he?!?!

Don't think so; I think I'm right in saying that none of us has intellectual property rights in our own image per se  unless we have specifically entered into a contract in respect of our own image rights.

So, for example, Becks may have created a special company (e.g. David Beckham Ltd), and then set up a contract whereby David Beckham Limited possesses the full IP rights in one Mr. David Beckham.  DB Ltd can then sell those IP rights to Man U, Pepsi, Adidas, Gilette... etc.

Unless this bloke has some sort of similar agreement with Matalan or Elizabeth Duke, then I should think that Artful (and SZ) is on fairly safe ground...

Not sure if it works to this extent, Matt, but for filoming purposes, anyone clearly recognisable on the footage to be used has to sign a release form or agree on record that their image can be used.

Dont think so... or no crowd photos could appear in the papers, and the old BBC news reporting favourite of walking down a high street towards a camera would be outlawed...

News is exempt as too are sports broadcasts etc. It is defined by the genre you are shooting and the end use, but I don't know if the laws apply to this scenario at all... or if they do... where this would fall.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Spaceman Spiff @ Oct. 06 2005,11:18)]

Quote[/b] (overseas shrimper @ Oct. 06 2005,11:16)]Not sure if it works to this extent, Matt, but for filoming purposes, anyone clearly recognisable on the footage to be used has to sign a release form or agree on record that their image can be used.

Dont think so... or no crowd photos could appear in the papers, and the old BBC news reporting favourite of walking down a high street towards a camera would be outlawed...

Nor would we have the time-honoured photos of "tired & emotional" celebs getting in & out of cars on the front page of The Sun...