I tried to find the forum post about an ICT song but alas i couldnt find it hence the new thread.

Ok heres the deal- Ive always disliked the "Bring it on home" song that David Balfe recorded, even when it was released back in 94/95??. So as i have mentioned on here before im rather experienced in writing music and i have my own studio, so i have started to write and record a new song and i thought it would be a great idea to offer this (once finished) as a cheap download for fans, maybe even raise money for an ICT endorsed charity or the supporters trust etc etc.

I hate your typical football songs and we all know them, so my approach is rather different. Think "World in Motion" or Three Lions with guitars.

Now i dont have a direct route to people in the club apart from Mr Falconer( if he's still there), but our beloved Mods are in contact with the club on a regular basis, so maybe we need to ask the club for their opinion as i dont want to spend several days doing this without their approval.

Mr MODS- can you help or advise?

I can help you out with contacting the club etc - drop me an e.mail to [email protected]

Done!

Is there anyone on CTO.com that might like to design a cover ( front & Back), Im happy to sit in front of my studio for 10 hours tweaking & mixing but Photshop does my head in.

Anyway if your a design whizz, pm me if your interested? I'd like this to be a professional job too

thanks

PM sent. I would attempt to have this completed by tonight if you're interested.

Im a rather dab hand a graphic design - or atleast i like to think so. I'm nearing completion of my latest course project so I can throw you an item or two in the close coming weeks?

Very rough conceptual design! Chose not to include the face of players or managers in the images as hopefully club song is something that can last throughout the careers of many! Was also unsure about font...

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Real Nice Wyness13...

I am thinking about a download only single, but a including cover will allow people to add this to their media player

Edited May 5, 201016 yr by BornCaley

Very rough conceptual design! Chose not to include the face of players or managers in the images as hopefully club song is something that can last throughout the careers of many! Was also unsure about font...

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Could "Coming Home" be in red or have a red bar running a cross it?

Thanks.

Yeah I suppose even with a download-only single most media players have album artwork spots and they can be added to the downloadable file for this purpose exactly! I will make a few changes etc. as collectiveaction has pointed out I could really do with some red in there somewhere!

Real Nice Wyness13...

I am thinking about a download only single, but a including cover will allow people to add this to their media player

Here's an updated version taking into account a request for the presence of the colour red in the design by collectiveaction;

Edited May 5, 201016 yr by Wyness13

Quick question....who's photos have you used and do you have permission to use them?

The base image is mine CaleyD, taken privately at the end of the Dundee game. The top-layer is a crop of Cox's legs from a photo taken from the caleyjags.com site which was sent to me in high-resolution after I requested it; if this image were to actually be used for a final piece of artwork I would ask permission from the site for it to be included in a final distributed design.

The crest I found in an image-search from google but surely all rights to the crest are owned by the club and this would pose no problem if the image was used?

Technically you've already distributed the design without permission by posting it on here. Whilst I'm sure it won't be a problem with any of those who own the images, you do need to be careful with these things as not everybody is as easy going as the guys behind caleyjags.com...and taking advantage of their good nature by assuming it would be ok is a little discourteous.

Like the idea behind the design though...even if the predominant blue may upset the old Jaggie contingent :004:

I agree with CaleyD on this one, image copyright like music copyright is something you need to have in place. Im sure the copyright holders will be ok with it once they learn of its use.

As for the name, i am still keen on Coming Home or Coming Home Again as they both fit into the track well. I might actually for a bit of fun; do 2 or 3 songs and get those on CTO.COM to choose.

anyway, i like the design but here's a thought. Maybe have the words Coming Home start as white and gradually blend into the other colours Red, Blue & Black....Not sure how hard that would be to do, but as i mentioned, im no photoshop guru

I agree with CaleyD on this one, image copyright like music copyright is something you need to have in place. Im sure the copyright holders will be ok with it once they learn of its use.

How many times are images posted on these forums without consent? Just look at the light hearted Ross C*unty threads. Wyness13 has clearly stated that if he were to use the image any further then he would ask permission. I really do not see the problem here, if there was a problem I am sure the admin would have offending images removed or would not post copyrighted images themselves.

Just a small point, but would it be worth airbrushing out the Errea badge on the shorts?

Cheers Rev. Aye as I've said I wouldn't dream of using this image without the consent of all parties concerned outwith this forum where it seems that the distribution of images concerning the club is pretty relaxed.

I'll take into account all suggestions for a next alteration of the design!

I agree with CaleyD on this one, image copyright like music copyright is something you need to have in place. Im sure the copyright holders will be ok with it once they learn of its use.

How many times are images posted on these forums without consent? Just look at the light hearted Ross C*unty threads. Wyness13 has clearly stated that if he were to use the image any further then he would ask permission. I really do not see the problem here, if there was a problem I am sure the admin would have offending images removed or would not post copyrighted images themselves.

I agree with CaleyD on this one, image copyright like music copyright is something you need to have in place. Im sure the copyright holders will be ok with it once they learn of its use.

How many times are images posted on these forums without consent? Just look at the light hearted Ross C*unty threads. Wyness13 has clearly stated that if he were to use the image any further then he would ask permission. I really do not see the problem here, if there was a problem I am sure the admin would have offending images removed or would not post copyrighted images themselves.

The problem here is that we are looking at something which is (potentially) a commercial venture and/or a situation where items may have been passed off as belonging to someone other than the actual owner....hence why I asked for clarification, and subsequently a little courtesy to the owner of the images.

As with many things in life, it's not what you do, but how you go about it that counts. We (CTO) have never had any problems getting permission to use images, audio etc etc from people connected to ICT and it's my belief that is in large part down to the fact that we always ask as opposed to just assuming it's ok.

We (CTO) have built up relationships with many people/providers over the years and with that comes a certain responsibility to these people. If we were to let forum users use their stuff willy nilly and do/say nothing then we run the risk of losing more than what is gained by one misused image or whatever.

So yeah, we do sometimes feel the need to issue a little reminder or question the odd thing...but that is a small price to pay for the goodwill that allows us to use pictures from CaleyJags.com, recorded interviews from the BBC, gets some of our match reporters access to the press room at the stadium, provides us a "status" which means we can afford licenses for producing fixture lists (and means that unlike other sites you guys can post details on them in the forum) and trusted enough to handle projects like the video highlights etc.

I understand how it might look "petty" to some, but it's not done for the hell of it and we have to take care of the larger picture.

As it is, I don't foresee any issue with the images above (I'd remove them if I did)...but hopefully my explanation means people can appreciate a little more the reasons why the question was asked.

I have been in contact with Peter Paul and we are both willing to allow the photographs of my ICT tattoo to be used for the cover.

I agree with CaleyD on this one, image copyright like music copyright is something you need to have in place. Im sure the copyright holders will be ok with it once they learn of its use.

How many times are images posted on these forums without consent? Just look at the light hearted Ross C*unty threads. Wyness13 has clearly stated that if he were to use the image any further then he would ask permission. I really do not see the problem here, if there was a problem I am sure the admin would have offending images removed or would not post copyrighted images themselves.

The problem here is that we are looking at something which is (potentially) a commercial venture and/or a situation where items may have been passed off as belonging to someone other than the actual owner....hence why I asked for clarification, and subsequently a little courtesy to the owner of the images.

As with many things in life, it's not what you do, but how you go about it that counts. We (CTO) have never had any problems getting permission to use images, audio etc etc from people connected to ICT and it's my belief that is in large part down to the fact that we always ask as opposed to just assuming it's ok.

We (CTO) have built up relationships with many people/providers over the years and with that comes a certain responsibility to these people. If we were to let forum users use their stuff willy nilly and do/say nothing then we run the risk of losing more than what is gained by one misused image or whatever.

So yeah, we do sometimes feel the need to issue a little reminder or question the odd thing...but that is a small price to pay for the goodwill that allows us to use pictures from CaleyJags.com, recorded interviews from the BBC, gets some of our match reporters access to the press room at the stadium, provides us a "status" which means we can afford licenses for producing fixture lists (and means that unlike other sites you guys can post details on them in the forum) and trusted enough to handle projects like the video highlights etc.

I understand how it might look "petty" to some, but it's not done for the hell of it and we have to take care of the larger picture.

As it is, I don't foresee any issue with the images above (I'd remove them if I did)...but hopefully my explanation means people can appreciate a little more the reasons why the question was asked.

Fair enough Don, I take it Rock Star games gave you permission to use the "Wang Cars" T-shirt then? TBH I just thought that your post was a wee bit T-i-C I just thought Borncaley was being a wee bit harsh on the lad.

Edited May 7, 201016 yr by Revbirdog

:angry:

May I just add that :

In my opinion The British Statute of Anne was the first act to directly protect the rights of authors. Under US copyright law, the justification appears in Article I, Section 8 Clause 8 of the Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause. It empowers the United States Congress "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

According to the World Intellectual Property Organisation the purpose of copyright is twofold:

"To encourage a dynamic creative culture, while returning value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for"

But I would also add that Copyright as a property law was initially conceived of as a "chose in action", that is an intangible property, as opposed to tangible property. Tangible property is attached to the legal ownership of a physical item, hence the purchase of a book buys ownership of the book, but not the underlying copyright in the book's content.

The Statute of Anne specifically referred to copyright in terms of property (see literary property), albeit limited in time. Many contemporaries did not believe that the statute was concerned with property "in the strict sense of the word". The question of whether copyright is property right dates back to the Battle of the Booksellers. In 1773 Lord Gardenston commented in Hinton v. Donaldson that "the ordinary subjects of property are well known, and easily conceived... But property, when applied to ideas, or literary and intellectual compositions, is perfectly new and surprising..."

It was in the 19th century that the term intellectual property began to be used as an umbrella term for patents, copyright and other laws. The expansion in the scope of copyright and copyright term are mirrored in the rhetoric that has been employed in referring to copyright. Courts, when strengthening copyright, have characterised it as a type of property. Companies have strongly emphasised copyright as property, with leaders in the music and movie industries seeking to "protect private property from being pillaged" and making forceful assertions that copyright is absolute property right. With reference to the expanding scope of copyright, one commentator noted that "We have gone from a regime where a tiny part of creative content was controlled to a regime where most of the most useful and valuable creative content is controlled for every significicant use."

Furthermore Copyright is literally, the right to copy, though in legal terms "the right to control copying" is more accurate. Copyright are exclusive statutory rights to exercise control over copying and other exploitation of the works for a specific period of time. The copyright owner is given two sets of rights: an exclusive, positive right to copy and exploit the copyrighted work, or license others to do so, and a negative right to prevent anyone else from doing so without consent, with the possibility of legal remedies if they do.

Copyright initially only granted the exclusive right to copy a book, allowing anybody to use the book to, for example, make a translation, adaptation or public performance. At the time print on paper was the only format in which most text based copyrighted works were distributed. Therefore, while the language of book contracts was typically very broad, the only exclusive rights that had any significant economic value were rights to distribute the work in print.[11] The exclusive rights granted by copyright law to copyright owners have been gradually expanded over time and now uses of the work such as dramatization, translations, and derivative works such as adaptations and transformations, fall within the scope of copyright. With a few exceptions, the exclusive rights granted by copyright are strictly territorial in scope, as they are granted by copyright laws in different countries. Bilateral and multilateral treaties establish minimum exclusive rights in member states, meaning that there is some uniformity across Berne Convention member states.

The print on paper format means that content is affixed onto paper and the content can?t be easily or conveniently manipulated by the user. Duplication of printed works is time-consuming and generally produces a copy that is of lower quality. Developments in technology have created new formats, in addition to paper, and new means of distribution. Particularly digital formats distributed over computer networks have separated the content from its means of delivery. Users of content are now able to exercise many of the exclusive rights granted to copyright owners, such as reproduction, distribution and adaptation.

The type of works which are subject to copyright has been expanded over time. Initially only covering books, copyright law was revised in the 19th century to include maps, charts, engravings, prints, musical compositions, dramatic works, photographs, paintings, drawings and sculptures. In the 20th century copyright was expanded to cover motion pictures, computer programs, sound recordings, dance and architectural works.

Copyright law is typically designed to protect the fixed expression or manifestation of an idea rather than the fundamental idea itself. Copyright does not protect ideas, only their expression and in the Anglo-American law tradition the idea-expression dichotomy is a legal concept which explains the appropriate function of copyright laws.

And to conclude I would wish to emphasise that

Related rights is used to describe database rights, public lending rights (rental rights), artist resale rights and performers? rights. Related rights may also refer to copyright in broadcasts and sound recordings. Related rights award copyright protection to works which are not author works, but rather technical media works which allowed author works to be communicated to a new audience in a different form. The substance of protection is usually not as great as there is for author works. In continental European copyright law a system of neighboring rights has thus developed and the approach was reinforced by the creation of the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations in 1961.

[edit] History

That makes it so much clearer then!

You misunderstood my post RevB- i didnt mean to be Harsh at all to Wyness...i just didnt want his good work to goto waste because someone took issue with their image being used. TBH i probably wouldnt have mentioned it if CaleyD hadnt mentioned the Copyright issue in his earlier post. Hope that clears that up.

You misunderstood my post RevB- i didnt mean to be Harsh at all to Wyness...i just didnt want his good work to goto waste because someone took issue with their image being used. TBH i probably wouldnt have mentioned it if CaleyD hadnt mentioned the Copyright issue in his earlier post. Hope that clears that up.

Fair doos, at the end of the day I just thought that seeing as how copyrighted images and intellectual property are posted on here on a daily basis, even sold on the site shop then it's a bit unfair to single out a user. I am not really that bothered anyway.

Chibber uses my jokes nearly all the time without permission and Renegade quite clearly steals his formations from Rinus Michels.

Edited May 7, 201016 yr by TheKnowledge

I need a decision about ma tattoo asap so I can call my agent

I need a decision about ma tattoo asap so I can call my agent

?80 fee will be due.

Then you can get a decent one in it's place. I can recommend Ross Tokely's artist. KC's TA-TU's