The copyright owners wishes are very well explained:
"Images I post in this thread and my related commentary are posted and published by me, the original photographer. All copyrights and all other rights reserved. These images may not be copied or otherwise distributed outside of this forum without my express permission."
To me, it pretty clear that initiating an archive against that page was explicitly ignoring the copyright owners wishes, not respecting them, and placing your belief in "preservation of digital history" above the rights of the person who took the photos.
I'm conflicted, because like you I'd hate to see those images vanish - but I now strongly suspect _next_ time this guy takes some pictures of something I'm fascinated by, he won't be posting them publicly any more.
(And you do know "but we gave you _attribution!_" is about the lamest and most infuriating thing you can say to a rightsholder who's copyright you're violating, right? And probably one of the favourite things their lawyers can possibly have in writing...)
You're absolutely right but this is a strange situation. It would take a pretty good NLP to figure out that this is the case and all things otherwise being equal I don't know how the archive would be told not to archive certain data if not through robots.txt, which is the non-human readable form. Otherwise you could always use the absence of either to do an end-run around the other.
So for practical reasons it is probably best to claim both copyright on the page and to set up robots.txt to specifically forbid those pieces that you don't want spread around from being indexed/archived.
In the eyes of the law probably only the copyright bit matters.
"Images I post in this thread and my related commentary are posted and published by me, the original photographer. All copyrights and all other rights reserved. These images may not be copied or otherwise distributed outside of this forum without my express permission."
To me, it pretty clear that initiating an archive against that page was explicitly ignoring the copyright owners wishes, not respecting them, and placing your belief in "preservation of digital history" above the rights of the person who took the photos.
I'm conflicted, because like you I'd hate to see those images vanish - but I now strongly suspect _next_ time this guy takes some pictures of something I'm fascinated by, he won't be posting them publicly any more.
(And you do know "but we gave you _attribution!_" is about the lamest and most infuriating thing you can say to a rightsholder who's copyright you're violating, right? And probably one of the favourite things their lawyers can possibly have in writing...)