Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   question for the copyright nazis (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t955016-question-for-the-copyright-nazis.html)

sobriquet 12-01-2012 07:06 PM

question for the copyright nazis
 

Does this constitute copyright infringement?

http://imgur.com/a/yTp8g#0

sobriquet 12-01-2012 08:14 PM

Re: question for the copyright nazis
 
On Saturday, December 1, 2012 8:45:27 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-12-01 11:06:30 -0800, sobriquet <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> said:
>
>
>
> >

>
> > Does this constitute copyright infringement?

>
> >

>
> > http://imgur.com/a/yTp8g#0

>
>
>
> From what I read in their terms of service (TOS), no.
>
>
>
> ...but then if you really cared you would have read the TOS yourself,
>
> where you would have found the following:
>
>
>
> "If someone else might own the copyright to it, don't upload it. Don't
>
> upload gore, obscenity, advertising, solicitations, "hate speech" (i.e.
>
> demeaning race, gender, age, religious or sexual orientation, etc.), or
>
> materian that is threatening, harassing, defamitory, or that encourages
>
> illegality. Don't hotlink to such content, or to file-sharing or
>
> torrent site. Don't be a troll or jerk. Don't impersonate someone else.
>
> If you do (and we will be the judge), or do anything illegal, in
>
> addition to other legal rights we may have, we will ban you along with
>
> the site you're hotlinking from, delete all your images, report you to
>
> the authorities if necessary, and prevent you from viewing any images
>
> hosted on Imgur.com. We mean it."
>
>
>
> http://imgur.com/tos
>
>
>
> So I guess they are concerned with you uploading copyrighted material
>
> owned by somebody other than you, to their site. Judging from their
>
> comprehensive procedure for dealing with copyright violations, it is
>
> quite possible that they have already had their share of "take down"
>
> orders.
>
>
>
> Always read the fine print.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Savageduck


Well, the question was more about the act of using images from others
to create new things without having asked permission in advance.

For instance, one can search for images via google.images, or simply
download a whole bunch of stockpictures from a p2p site. Then you can use
those images in photoshop creations and share the results online at some
site, like www.worth1000.com

I suspect that many of the images created and shared there lack
proper authorization. But then again, what's the worst that can happen?
Probably a DMCA takedown procedure forcing them to take the image
offline.
Given how unlikely that is, it seems in practice one can more or less
get away with using arbitrary images in photoshop compositions without
worrying about proper authorization.

DanP 12-01-2012 08:38 PM

Re: question for the copyright nazis
 
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 11:06:30 -0800, sobriquet wrote:

> Does this constitute copyright infringement?
>
> http://imgur.com/a/yTp8g#0


Depends. To clarify it you need to see the sources of the 2 photos and if
the photographer/s allow their photos to be used in that way, if they do,
is it a fee involved and was that fee paid.

There are some places where you cannot take photos due to copyright but
it does not seem the mounted police and the dog were in such places.

I am not making money out of photos and my photos on Flickr are free for
anyone to use and modify provided is not for commercial use. Well, I am
not sure if I made that clear for all my photos and some might show as
strict copyright.

I am not sure if my answer interests you, you question is addressed to
the copyright nazis and I have no idea if you consider me one or not.
Well, if you consider me one this is your answer.

I have managed to ignore all the humour from your post and to redeem
myself have a look at this http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/man-
stands-trial-for-trying-to-feed-sausage-rolls-to-police-horse


DanP

Mayayana 12-01-2012 08:44 PM

Re: question for the copyright nazis
 

| Well, the question was more about the act of using images from others
| to create new things without having asked permission in advance.
|

I've been working on a website recently, for which I
needed some photos of plumbing themes. Having started
with your link to wikimedia, I eventually ended up finding
this site:
http://www.everystockphoto.com/

It seems to be the best of the sites that one doesn't
have to join in order to use. It searches wikimedia and
several other sources. I've been using only photos that
are public domain or Creative Commons license. With the
former I put the original URL in the HTML comments and
keep a copy of the source page/license. With the latter
I do the same and additionally put an attribution to the
original owner in the IMG TITLE attribute, which shows
when hovering over the image.
In both cases you can create derivative works. Public
domain is free to use and most CC licensing spells out
the right specifically.

With that approach it seems to be fully legal and respectful
to use such images, or any derivative works. I suspect that
most of the people using a Creative Commons license that
requires attribution were pushed into it by hosting websites
that want back-links. The license always says one must
provide attribution in accord with the owners specifications.
But I have yet to find an owner who has even made their
personal info. available, much less stated their requirement.
I'm guessing they intended to just make their photos public
domain but that the hosting sites push CC in order to keep
rights to the original and force linking to their page.
Nevertheless, it's easy enough to provide attribution.

I spent a couple of days researching options for usable
basic photos. Thanks to your original post I now have
access to a reasonably extensive source of legally usable
images.



sobriquet 12-01-2012 08:55 PM

Re: question for the copyright nazis
 
On Saturday, December 1, 2012 9:38:19 PM UTC+1, DanP wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 11:06:30 -0800, sobriquet wrote:
>
> > Does this constitute copyright infringement?
> > http://imgur.com/a/yTp8g#0

>
> Depends. To clarify it you need to see the sources of the 2 photos and if
> the photographer/s allow their photos to be used in that way, if they do,
> is it a fee involved and was that fee paid.
>


I have no idea, but I suspect these images were simply found via
images.google and used without permission.

>
> There are some places where you cannot take photos due to copyright but
> it does not seem the mounted police and the dog were in such places.
>
> I am not making money out of photos and my photos on Flickr are free for
> anyone to use and modify provided is not for commercial use. Well, I am
> not sure if I made that clear for all my photos and some might show as
> strict copyright.
>
> I am not sure if my answer interests you, you question is addressed to
> the copyright nazis and I have no idea if you consider me one or not.
> Well, if you consider me one this is your answer.
>


I consider people copyright nazi's if they think they can put their
'intellectual property' (like photos) online and expect to dictate
to others what they can or can't do with that content.
To some degree they can (e.g. they can harass others who use their
images without permission with a DMCA procedure), but given that this
kind of infringement can occur over and over, it seems a bit
pointless to try and harass others in that respect.
So it seems somewhat irrelevant how someone feels about their
content being used by others and attempts to prevent others from
using their content seems more like a theoretical than a practical
proposition.

>
> I have managed to ignore all the humour from your post and to redeem
> myself have a look at this http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/man-
> stands-trial-for-trying-to-feed-sausage-rolls-to-police-horse
>
> DanP


DanP 12-01-2012 09:25 PM

Re: question for the copyright nazis
 
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 12:55:29 -0800, sobriquet wrote:

> I have no idea, but I suspect these images were simply found via
> images.google and used without permission.
>


OK, then you need to find out if the photographer/s would permit that.
Till then there is no clear answer to your question.

> I consider people copyright nazi's if they think they can put their
> 'intellectual property' (like photos) online and expect to dictate to
> others what they can or can't do with that content.


I am saying this again, I am not seeking financial gain. But I'd be quite
crossed if a photo I put online with a clear copyright notice would be
used in an advertising campaign without my permission and most probably I
would seek legal advice. So by your definition I am a copyright nazi.

> To some degree they can (e.g. they can harass others who use their
> images without permission with a DMCA procedure), but given that this
> kind of infringement can occur over and over, it seems a bit pointless
> to try and harass others in that respect.
> So it seems somewhat irrelevant how someone feels about their content
> being used by others and attempts to prevent others from using their
> content seems more like a theoretical than a practical proposition.
>


A lot of people who take photos for a living must show their portfolio
online in order to reach their clients and would take some legal action
if their work is used witout their permission. So they would be copyright
nazis as well.


DanP

sobriquet 12-01-2012 09:46 PM

Re: question for the copyright nazis
 
On Saturday, December 1, 2012 9:43:50 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
>
> > Well, the question was more about the act of using images from others
> > to create new things without having asked permission in advance.

>
> No it wasn't.
> Your question was quite concise and clear for once:
> "Does this constitute copyright infringement?"
> Their TOS is also quite clear.
>


But my question was about the image at worth1000.com. I just
used imgur to show the image together with the source images.

>
> > For instance, one can search for images via google.images, or simply
> > download a whole bunch of stockpictures from a p2p site. Then you can use
> > those images in photoshop creations and share the results online at some
> > site, like www.worth1000.com

>
> > I suspect that many of the images created and shared there lack
> > proper authorization. But then again, what's the worst that can happen?
> > Probably a DMCA takedown procedure forcing them to take the image
> > offline.
> > Given how unlikely that is, it seems in practice one can more or less
> > get away with using arbitrary images in photoshop compositions without
> > worrying about proper authorization.

>
> ...and all of the above is verbal garbage that you are using to
> rationalize your behavior. If you are truly concerned, why not contact
> the actual creator, or host site of the images you want to use, and see
> how they feel about your proposal?


That's besides the point. My point is that I'm questioning to what
degree licensing is supposed to be effective.

For instance, the image of the dog appears to originate here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dogge_Odin.jpg

People can use the image, but they are required to mention
the source (the one at worth1000.com appears to fail in
proper attribution). Of course I didn't mention the source
either, but I got the image from another site and that site
didn't mention the source either.

The image of the mounted police seems to originate here:
http://www.bethlehem-pa.gov/about/im...ntedpolice.htm

They don't mention anything about copyright.

>
> We have been over this issue ad nauseum on several occasions. You know
> how most of us feel about it. So just go ahead and do as you please,
> but don't bring it up here again.


I bring it up, because I think this is a fascinating topic.
If you think the topic isn't worth further discussion, why do you
participate in this thread?

>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck


sobriquet 12-01-2012 10:26 PM

Re: question for the copyright nazis
 
On Saturday, December 1, 2012 10:25:11 PM UTC+1, DanP wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 12:55:29 -0800, sobriquet wrote:
>
> > I have no idea, but I suspect these images were simply found via
> > images.google and used without permission.

>
>
> OK, then you need to find out if the photographer/s would permit that.
> Till then there is no clear answer to your question.


But hypothetically speaking, we can reasonably assume that many
people who employ images from others in photoshop compositions
on websites like worth1000.com are likely to neglect asking proper
permission. I'm just interested in the question to what degree that
poses a serious risk of legal repercussions.

>
> > I consider people copyright nazi's if they think they can put their
> > 'intellectual property' (like photos) online and expect to dictate to
> > others what they can or can't do with that content.

>
> I am saying this again, I am not seeking financial gain. But I'd be quite
> crossed if a photo I put online with a clear copyright notice would be
> used in an advertising campaign without my permission and most probably I
> would seek legal advice. So by your definition I am a copyright nazi.


To some degree. I think there is a distinction between commercial
and 'personal' use. In case you put images online and other people
use them for profit, it does seem like you're entitled to some of
that profit.
But it's hard to draw a clear distinction between personal and
commercial use. There are just extremes on a gradual scale. On the
one end we have people using images from others as a digital doodle
on a website for fun and on the other end of the scale we have
people selling other people's images for profit and perhaps even
passing it off as their own work.
In case other people are clearly making a profit from using other
people's work, I think it's reasonable to try to contact them to
see if they are willing to negotiate about sharing some of that
profit or employing the legal system to force them to share some
of that profit.
But it seems a more likely scenario that people put a medium
resolution version of their pictures online and other people's
use of that image is likely to be so fragmentary that it's
unreasonable to object to such usage, regardless how you feel
about it.
For instance, you might have 100 pics online and perhaps they take
one of those pictures and extract one element from it in photoshop
and they put that on a website, along with images photoshopped
from countless other sources and perhaps they generate some
advertising revenue with that website. It would seem unreasonable
for people who's pictures have been used to claim they are entitled
to some of that ad revenue. Though this is different from an image
being used in a massive advertising campaign with wide exposure
as opposed to your image being one of countless others that are
featured on a website.

As an individual, I'm primarily interested in the question to
what degree I have the creative freedom to employ other
people's images without bothering to ask for proper permission
(as I'm not using those images commercially).
If I had the intention of selling photoshop compositions,
I think that would be different and in that case I think that
would be a compelling reason to be more conscientious
regarding where I obtain my source material. In that case
I would probably either use my own images or image that
are provided by people who do not object to their content
being used commercially. Just to avoid potential legal
issues that are more likely to ensue in case of commercial
use.

When you create art for art's sake (rather than for
commercial gain), you might as well spread it anonymously
online and in that case it seems unlikely people can
effectively sue you or anything along those lines (though
they may be able to get your images offline in case they
object to their images being used).

>
> > To some degree they can (e.g. they can harass others who use their
> > images without permission with a DMCA procedure), but given that this
> > kind of infringement can occur over and over, it seems a bit pointless
> > to try and harass others in that respect.
> > So it seems somewhat irrelevant how someone feels about their content
> > being used by others and attempts to prevent others from using their
> > content seems more like a theoretical than a practical proposition.

>
> A lot of people who take photos for a living must show their portfolio
> online in order to reach their clients and would take some legal action
> if their work is used witout their permission. So they would be copyright
> nazis as well.


Yes. I think they wouldn't put up their work in full resolution in their
portfolio. So if their work is used without their permission, it's probably
rather trivial as it doesn't involve the full resolution images. Trivial
in the sense that use of those low to medium resolution images is unlikely
to negatively impact their potential to generate an income with their
photography skills to any significant degree.

>
>
> DanP


Mayayana 12-01-2012 10:30 PM

Re: question for the copyright nazis
 
| > I spent a couple of days researching options for usable
| > basic photos. Thanks to your original post I now have
| > access to a reasonably extensive source of legally usable
| > images.
|
| This is a good place to start.
| < http://creativecommons.org/licenses/...3.0/deed.en_US >
|

?? A good place to start for what? You've linked to
the text of a license restricting images to non-commercial
use. In my travels, particularly at wikimedia, I haven't seen
that license in use. (I wonder why anyone would specifically
decide to share their images, making them free for anyone
to use, distribute and alter, but then ban commercial
applications. It wouldn't make much sense.)

Most photos I've found that don't require purchase use
this license:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

In some cases there's one of these licenses:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/deed.en
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Fre...tation_License

Or a choice between two license options. All of the
above licenses allow commercial use. They're essentially
the same as the license you linked, but without the
commercial restriction.

In other words, using photos from wikimedia for commercial
purposes is legal, and also respectful of the owner's wishes
if attribution is included. So I don't see why you would imply
that it's not legal.



Mayayana 12-01-2012 10:44 PM

Re: question for the copyright nazis
 
| I consider people copyright nazi's if they think they can put their
| 'intellectual property' (like photos) online and expect to dictate
| to others what they can or can't do with that content.

I think DanP pretty much explained the situation.
There's respect for others and then there's legality.
If you don't respect the owner's claims then legality
is the only issue. That won't matter if you only look
at photos for your own use. On the other hand, if you
have a business or a non-profit, with something to lose,
then it becomes important to obey laws. Otherwise
you could lose out, regardless of what rights you
believe you have.

Imgur claims
all rights on images uploaded, yet restrict downloaders
to "personal, non-commercial" use. In other words, you
are free only to look at the pictures, or perhaps use them
as Desktop background, while uploaders must give up
their property rights as the price of using the site.




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.