question for the copyright nazis

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by sobriquet, Dec 1, 2012.

  1. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    sobriquet, Dec 1, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, December 1, 2012 8:45:27 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-12-01 11:06:30 -0800, sobriquet <> 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.
     
    sobriquet, Dec 1, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. sobriquet

    DanP Guest

    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
     
    DanP, Dec 1, 2012
    #3
  4. sobriquet

    Mayayana Guest

    | 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.
     
    Mayayana, Dec 1, 2012
    #4
  5. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    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
     
    sobriquet, Dec 1, 2012
    #5
  6. sobriquet

    DanP Guest

    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
     
    DanP, Dec 1, 2012
    #6
  7. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    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/imagegallery/mountedpolice.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, Dec 1, 2012
    #7
  8. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    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
     
    sobriquet, Dec 1, 2012
    #8
  9. sobriquet

    Mayayana Guest

    | > 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/by-nc-sa/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_Free_Documentation_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, Dec 1, 2012
    #9
  10. sobriquet

    Mayayana Guest

    | 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.
     
    Mayayana, Dec 1, 2012
    #10
  11. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, December 1, 2012 11:11:45 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-12-01 13:46:05 -0800, sobriquet <> said:
    > > But my question was about the image at worth1000.com. I just
    > > used imgur to show the image together with the source images.

    >
    > You didn't ask that in your original post. How are we supposed to guess
    > what you imagined you asked?
    >
    > If that is what you intended to ask, then it seems you might well have
    > violated imgur.com tos by uploading to their site without ensuring that
    > you were free to do so.
    >
    > Just because you can do something without complying with simple terms
    > of use, doesn't make it right.


    I think it's not such a big deal. I can understand why imgur would
    have these terms of use, so they can avoid legal issues and
    defer all responsibility to users of their site.

    I don't feel compelled to adhere very strictly to these terms and
    conditions. I accept the consequence of that position that imgur
    can take my images offline as they see fit. However, as far as I can
    see, this is an unlikely scenario, given the amount of images
    posted there on a daily basis and the chances of someone who
    objects to my use of their images to contact imgur in order to
    force them to take the offending image offline.

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

    >
    > It should be effective enough that honorable users will honor the terms
    > of the license.
    >


    Honorability is in the eye of the beholder.

    > > 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.

    >
    > Why should that stop you from doing the right thing and honoring their
    > simple request?


    Because I found the image elsewhere and where I found it,
    there was no copyright information mentioned.
    It was only later in this discussion that I found out where the
    image of the dog really originated.

    > > The image of the mounted police seems to originate here:
    > > http://www.bethlehem-pa.gov/about/imagegallery/mountedpolice.htm
    > > They don't mention anything about copyright.

    >
    > However, if you want to be thorough, a check with Cobis at
    > should settle the matter definitively. Why not
    > ask there?
    >


    Why would I ask there? I'm not the one who used their image for a
    photoshop composition. I think it's rather futile to bother them
    about uploading their image to imgur for the sake of this discussion.

    If they were very concerned about copyright, it stands to reason they
    would mention this alongside with the images.

    > Oh! The topic is well worth discussion, however you have an agenda to
    > rationalize your behavior and goals in ignoring any and all copyright
    > and creator's rights because it suits you.


    That depends. In case I create things for the sake of creating things,
    I think that more or less renders the question about copyright or
    licensing moot. I just have to accept the consequence that anything
    I create can potentially be taken offline (since I don't usually bother
    about paying attention to copyright aspects). That might also
    motivate me to spread creations anonymously.

    Consider for instance a graffiti artist. They usually create illegal art,
    so given that their creations are illegal to begin with, it would be silly
    to expect them to ask for proper permissions when they would like
    to use other people's images as part of their creations.

    I find the idea of spreading art online illegally appealing.
    So copyright violations are part of the fun in creating online art
    as a kind of subversive and non-conformist activity.
    Not illegality for illegality's sake, but illegality to provoke people
    to think about the nature of these copyright laws that prohibit
    certain forms of creativity and their legitimacy.

    > > why do you participate in this thread?

    >
    > Good question. I just thought I should restate my opinion regarding
    > this underground philosophy of yours.
    > I'll leave you to it now.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Savageduck
     
    sobriquet, Dec 1, 2012
    #11
  12. sobriquet

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 12:55:29 -0800 (PST), sobriquet <>
    wrote:
    : 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.

    You've evidently spent a bit of effort to convince yourself that the risk of
    doing exactly as you please is quite low. But in most jurisdictions there are
    actual laws regarding copyright violation, and it's not inconceivable that you
    could find yourself getting sued or even arrested as a thief. If I had your
    attitude and were as determined to act on it as you seem to be, I might be
    inclined to talk to a lawyer about what my risks really are. Maybe they're
    greater than you think; and repeatedly stating your contempt for all forms of
    intellectual property law may make them greater still, since it could make it
    harder for you to claim that your violations were done innocently.

    Let me make one thing clear, though: I don't give a rat's ass whether you take
    my advice or not, and I have no desire or intention to argue with you about
    this or any other matter. So you can spare yourself the trouble of telling me
    that you're right and I'm full of shit.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Dec 2, 2012
    #12
  13. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Sunday, December 2, 2012 2:33:21 PM UTC+1, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 12:55:29 -0800 (PST), sobriquet <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > : 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.
    >
    > You've evidently spent a bit of effort to convince yourself that the risk of
    > doing exactly as you please is quite low. But in most jurisdictions there are
    > actual laws regarding copyright violation, and it's not inconceivable that you
    > could find yourself getting sued or even arrested as a thief. If I had your
    > attitude and were as determined to act on it as you seem to be, I might be
    > inclined to talk to a lawyer about what my risks really are. Maybe they're
    > greater than you think; and repeatedly stating your contempt for all forms of
    > intellectual property law may make them greater still, since it could make it
    > harder for you to claim that your violations were done innocently.
    >
    >
    > Let me make one thing clear, though: I don't give a rat's ass whether you take
    > my advice or not, and I have no desire or intention to argue with you about
    > this or any other matter. So you can spare yourself the trouble of telling me
    > that you're right and I'm full of shit.
    >
    > Bob


    This all remains a bit theoretical. Perhaps there would be more
    substance to your claims if you could point to some of your
    intellectual property online and then it might be interesting
    to see to what degree you're actually managing to prevent others
    from violating your copyright.

    I've given examples of websites where people apparently freely
    employ the creations of others in their own photoshop compositions.
    Given that this occurs on such a massive scale, it seems like my
    outlook on intellectual property is at least more realistic.
     
    sobriquet, Dec 2, 2012
    #13
  14. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, December 1, 2012 9:44:35 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
    > | 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/
    >


    I've uploaded some of my pictures here:
    http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/browse-author.php?a=40392

    I think I'll be uploading more pictures there. If many people upload
    some of their best pictures there, collectively, it would be a very nice
    library of pictures useful for photoshop compositions.

    >
    >
    > 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, Dec 3, 2012
    #14
  15. sobriquet

    Mayayana Guest

    | I've uploaded some of my pictures here:
    | http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/browse-author.php?a=40392
    |

    Thank you. "Bumblebee" is stunning.

    | I think I'll be uploading more pictures there. If many people upload
    | some of their best pictures there, collectively, it would be a very nice
    | library of pictures useful for photoshop compositions.
    |

    That's a nice thought. I'm not a very good photographer,
    but I suppose just about any photo, no strings attached,
    might be useful to someone.
     
    Mayayana, Dec 3, 2012
    #15
  16. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Monday, December 3, 2012 2:41:22 AM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
    >
    >
    > Thank you. "Bumblebee" is stunning.
    >


    Thx.

    >
    >
    > That's a nice thought. I'm not a very good photographer,
    > but I suppose just about any photo, no strings attached,
    > might be useful to someone.



    Often you can extract nice elements from it, even if the picture
    isn't very good otherwise.
    Flickr also has useful images. Via the everystockphoto.com interface
    it's even easier to obtain the max resolution images there (takes more
    clicks via the flickr website).
    If you have a large library it's easier to find suitable images.

    The problem with compositions is often that the light-situation
    doesn't match between source and target, like here the image
    of the monkey was in the sun (with notably overblown highlights on
    the teeth) while the image of the dog was taken on an overcast day:

    http://imgur.com/1Ib8B
     
    sobriquet, Dec 3, 2012
    #16
  17. sobriquet

    RichA Guest

    On Dec 1, 2:45 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2012-12-01 11:06:30 -0800, sobriquet <> 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.


    Someone noted that if a political cartoonist was able to publish the
    kind of cartoons they did in the late 1800's, they'd be sued or even
    in jail. So, we have less rights now than 130 ago. So much for
    progress...
     
    RichA, Dec 3, 2012
    #17
  18. sobriquet

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Monday, December 3, 2012 7:15:48 AM UTC, RichA wrote:
    > On Dec 1, 2:45 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    > > On 2012-12-01 11:06:30 -0800, sobriquet <> 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.

    >
    >
    >
    > Someone noted that if a political cartoonist was able to publish the
    >
    > kind of cartoons they did in the late 1800's, they'd be sued or even
    >
    > in jail. So, we have less rights now than 130 ago. So much for
    >
    > progress...



    Doesn't that depend on who the we are ?
    And of course which country.
     
    Whisky-dave, Dec 3, 2012
    #18
  19. sobriquet

    Joe Kotroczo Guest

    On 01/12/2012 20:06, sobriquet wrote:
    >
    > Does this constitute copyright infringement?
    >
    > http://imgur.com/a/yTp8g#0
    >


    "Copyright" is the wrong term, but it does potentially infringe. The
    uniform design is the intellectual property of whatever police
    department or municipality it belongs to, and if the photo was intended
    for publication it would need to be cleared with them. They might allow
    the use of their IP for free or for a fee or they might not allow it at all.

    But I suspect the question really is about the use of existing art in a
    collage or montage. In my experience the legislation concerning re-use
    varies significantly in various territories, you'd have to be more
    specific. Again, if this is for publication, the rule of thumb is to
    cover your behind and ask for permission.

    --
    audentes fortuna iuvat
     
    Joe Kotroczo, Dec 3, 2012
    #19
  20. sobriquet

    Mayayana Guest

    | The problem with compositions is often that the light-situation
    | doesn't match between source and target, like here the image
    | of the monkey was in the sun (with notably overblown highlights on
    | the teeth) while the image of the dog was taken on an overcast day:
    |
    | http://imgur.com/1Ib8B

    You have a quirky sense of humor. :)
     
    Mayayana, Dec 3, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Speed Demon

    eBook copyright question

    Speed Demon, Aug 3, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    513
    NotMe
    Aug 3, 2005
  2. Five

    Copyright question?

    Five, Jun 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    675
    PTRAVEL
    Jun 13, 2004
  3. stu

    COPYRIGHT DVD QUESTION

    stu, Oct 18, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    503
    luminos
    Oct 18, 2004
  4. Colin B
    Replies:
    195
    Views:
    3,026
    Colin B
    Jan 19, 2007
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    991
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page