Note on Copyright regarding text and images content used on this website:
In almost all cases images used on this website are originals whose copyright is possessed by the photographers or our not-for-profit organisation.
In some very rare instances images that are in the public domain/internet, AND have No stated photographer or copyright source may from time to time be utilised for public information on an article theme purpose. In ALL such cases we never use images that clearly state they ARE (not ‘maybe) copyrighted, and where the image has associated wording to the effect that it ‘maybe copyright’ endeavour to find if copyright exists for such images, and do Not use if found. If the copyright holder or photographer/owner contacts us we remove the image immediately (within an hour to hours and Never later than 24 hours).
We completely disapprove of use of images that have the photographer or other copyright holder [clearly stated as such] stated in regard to the image, having the given image used without seeking and receiving permission from the photographer and/or copyright holder. In instances where no named photographer or copyholder is provided on the online location where a topic [not person related] image has been sought and located, the photographer or other copyright holder need to evidence their claim to taking or purchasing the image in making contact with a charity or not-for-profit charitable company utilising such an image for educational, not-for-profit purposes. Press agencies often purchase images and through purchase receive copyrights.
They too in contacting a charity or not-for-profit charitable company utilising such an image for educational, not-for-profit purposes, need to evidence their purchase of copyrights, directly to the charity or not-for-profit charitable company utilising a given image that has in its source where these latter may have searched it for educational purposes, had no attribution to the photographer or copyright holder.
Such processes prevent original copyright holders or press association purchasers of the latter’s work, which otherwise run risk of public domain reputational damage if associated with perceived de-facto copyright troll type companies and operations who seek money without claim calculation and division of money sought [with the servicing company of which there are many kinds from ethical and transparent to unethical/non-transparent/intimidatory in communications methods] from charitable organisations utilising images with no copyright particulars sourced from online searches, for assisting minority and disadvantaged commonly discriminated against communities.
Regarding IP / copyright law perceived de-facto abusive practices where seeking income comes from third parties that have not evidenced direct copyright holder and/or photographer authorisation in their communications: The Network has found that charities and not for profit companies are sometimes targeted by trolling practices of registered companies de-facto exploiting legal loopholes that abuse the purpose of Copyright Law, to seek money.
This is due to loopholes and imprecision in current UK Copyright Law on public domain images (Google images searches related) where copyright information is lacking (only with a legal rider that the given image ‘may be subject to copyright’ but providing no information on if it actually is or not, and who may hold that copyright. These two combined factors enable images rights business outfits to establish themselves – in their practices through back up services by registered law firms that provide de-facto operational level supportive legal services support to such outfits which use intimidating/harassing tactics. Such images rights outfits, for example, may set up on the UK Companies House register and within weeks change their registered name, and they may be proven to be linked to comparable outfits in other countries and continents.
Such outfits may involve remuneration-seeking WITHOUT evidence of provision of copyright holders direct authorisation notes being provided to those remuneration is sought from WITHOUT provision of detailed justification rationales for the remuneration amounts sought — regularly and at scale, being attempted to be secured from UK charities and not-for-profit charitable companies via de-facto harassment tactics and threats of ‘escalating legal costs’ orientated communications.
In these cases, in regard to the LGBT+ Network for Change, through this information clarification note, remind such companies that no response will be provided unless they evidence direct authorisation by copyright holders, photographers to: a) contact us, and b) that said copyright holders and photographers have explicitly requested money to be sought and the amount thereof including how calculated.
Such companies and their named officers and associates may also be contacted by us if the information referred to above has not been provided.
The LGBT+ Network for Change notes from years of experience, that prejudice and indirect discrimination take many forms, and we would if a communication in any form be made by such rogue companies, allow for the latter as a factor on taking such action as would be known to be disruptive to the core work of charities and not for profit companies working in the equality and anti-discrimination domain.
We reserve all rights to publicise de-facto, perceived, revealed exploitative conduct [where no reasonable non-pecuniary resolution of image removal is absent in communications] in relevant directions, including but not restricted to relevant regulatory bodies and the news media, including particulars of businesses that may provide remunerated services that enable such abuse of the law by such companies.
This extends to associated businesses that directly assist the latter in their harassing practices; particularly if these and the said companies they support in their practices, have public domain stated positions of being equality and diversity supportive entities (in making such statements revelations on regular contrary practice, indicating practices that maybe in legal conflict with relevant provisions of the UK Equality Act 2010). This including participation in such practices that have reputation-harming impacts disruptive to the good name and the functioning and existence of the given charity or not for profit company with charitable Objects and related operational activity.
From years of experience in the proving indirect discrimination, with our work with local government and public services such as police constabularies, the NHS, and government agencies, we utilise infallible criteria to highlight the presence of indirect discrimination in conduct and communications methods.
Regarding use of original LGBT+ Network for Change publicly/internet settings provided photos: he LGBT+ Network for Change WELCOMES use by third-parties of any of the original images we have provide on our website. The only requirement that we insist on is that if such images are utilised, is that they are attributed to the LGBT+ Network for Change. This involves providing a ‘source’ webpage link or reference.
Regarding use of in part or whole, LGBT+ Network for Change website content text and/or excerpts in part or whole of LGBT+ Network for Change text and documents: If in part or in whole excerpts and/or part or whole copying of LGBT+ Network for Change text and documents is sought, it will be essential that we are contacted via email to request permission. If this is not followed and we find such text content online without the source being attributed we reserve the right to take potential legal action and publicising what has taken place.