William and Kate's Official Wedding Portrait Revealed!

The gown was perfect; not "over the top", but simple and elegant! She's a beauty!

Sorry, but you're mstaken about the uniform. It is an Irish Guards colonel's uniform. The Duke was appointed to this regiment and rank last week.

I got the name of the uniform from the source which printed the photos. I'll see if I can have it corrected. Thank you for pointing out the mistake!

B E A U T I FU L -

... KATE MIDDLETON, PRINCE WILLIAM, Duke, Duchess of Cambridgeshire, . . . proud, dignified, his mom PRINCESS DIANA would be PROUD! ! ! !

Gosh, another Gather exclusive. Gather is the only place you can see this. Hope you have permission from US magazine to use the picture.

Is that your schtick, Nippy? You're bitter that there are people around here who get paid to post articles and you don't, so you go around flagging things out of spite? That's pathetic. Those pictures were released by Buckingham Palace for public use. Get a life.

I hope Gather plans on doing something about the writers-for-points who run around the site destroying peoples' livelihoods like little children.

I'm curious where you got the information about the pictures being in the public domain. The US site credits the copyright owner as follows: "Credit: Hugo Burnand/Clarence House/PA." They had permission to publish the pictures. A lot of people post copyrighted material here without permission. Every now and then I get annoyed.

In case you're wondering, I did flag this article for inappropriate use of copyrighted material. The Gather TOS is very clear on the subject. Rule 6 on the TOS page states: "Respect all Copyright and Fair Use laws when posting any content on Gather. This means you can only upload content you created or that you have the written rights to use. Do not use content in your posts, photos, videos, or comments that someone else owns the copyright to without obtaining written permission and stating that permission. Giving credit to the source is not enough. Most music, movies, TV programs, and videos published by others are copyrighted and require written permission to use. This is not Gather's rule; this is the law."

Don't worry about your post being taken down. Gather follows the eBay doctrine, i. e. it will act on copyright violation only when asked to by the owner of the copyright.

As far as your livelihood is concerned, surely you can find a way to earn money that doesn't involve theft.

Nippy, if you notice, LOADS of websites and blogs are awash with it. IT was released to the public for the public's use.

"Official Photos released by Clarence House."

That means, Nippy, they're for everyone to use.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/30/official-royal-wedding-photos_n_855835.html

Looked at the Huffington Post link. It says nothing about public domain. This stuff may be public domain but I don't see any proof. I notice that other sites--real commercial sites--credit the owner of the pics. That indicates to me that it's not just a courtesy even if the sites were allowed to use the pictures at no charge.

The everybody's doing it defense apparently applies to speeding, jaywalking, use of illegal drugs, too. Funny how criminal lawyers haven't caught on to it yet.

Oh, SNAP! Snippy, guess what I found!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishmonarchy/5671667895/in/photostream/

"The photos are for editorial use only, and they are must not be re-sold
or commercially exploited in any way. For requests other than editorial
use, please put your requests in writing to Press Office, St James’s
Palace, London, SW1A 1BS."

This means they can be used in editorials, you know, like Renee's story and the HuffPost story. All it took was a simple google search to find it.

Yup, I understand what editorial content is. I doubt that the intended editorial use includes use without proper citation. It's still copyrighted material. I think another interesting question is whether or not content farm use is editorial use. It seems like the sole purpose of posting stuff like that here is commercial exploitation. Whether or not that's the case legally is not really a question I can answer. I realize it's not tee shirts or coffee mugs. :)

It does appear that I may have flagged this article in error. If that's the case I apologize. Any copyright violation is probably procedural.

However, posting something like this on Gather provides no value to anyone except Gather shareholders and the person who posted it. These pictures are available universally. Posting them on Gather boosts site hit count and that's it. The accompanying text provides no insight into the wedding and could have easily been reduced to a single sentence like "Here's one of the official royal wedding pictures."

Nippy, if the article content bothers you so much then apply for Skyword and write them yourself. Until then, I'm not inclined to pay much attention to your criticism. You're nothing more than a backseat driver.

If it fails to provide value, Nippy, why on earth are you reading it?

"You're nothing more than a backseat driver."

Could you clarify that? I'm not telling you what to do. I'm just expressing contempt for what you do. As far as I know they're completely different things.

"why on earth are you reading it?"

When I signed in this morning I saw it on the front page. My curiosity got the better of me. I had hoped that the person who put up the picture had something to say about it. I was wrong. In order to decide whether or not it had value to me I had to look at it.