Legal Question

[ezdays]

There are other issues as well. The internet itself works under the assumption that the content is available to all unless otherwise specified. If you browse for images, you will notice that the professional block their images from being copied without their permission. Images not blocked are considered free for the most part, or simply require a link.

There is also the issue of outfits on the net like Photobucket, used by a lot of us. Once an image is copied to Photobucket, they relabel it as one of theirs, and they permit outsiders to browse your stored images. Therefore, nothing copied to Photobucket is considered off limits unless you make the effort to block off your account.

Acceptable practice is to post a link to the material that takes a viewer back to the source, if that is possible. It is not always possible to do that with certain types of accounts. It is also devilishly hard to contact the copywrite holders a lot of the time, leaving you with nowhere to go, even when trying to do the right thing.

I make every effort to follow the rules, but in the end, the final responsibility rests on the shoulders of the owner of the image, who has the option to remove the image from the open internet in order to protect, or to take the step to block the copy function. Failure to take either of those steps is de facto permission for the public top use the image under the general conditions described above -give credit.

Just to enlighten me, can you tell me where you found that information? I've never seen copyrighted protection of material specifically on the Internet defined this way so I would like to see that. I think some people assume this to be true and act accordingly, but from the way I understand it, just like anywhere else, something is copyright protected unless you define it as being in the public domain by telling everyone it is free to copy, or that it's actually old enough to have lost its protection and is actually in public domain. Some people do add watermarks to keep others from stealing their work, and that's an added layer of protection, others define that it is protected to reassure others that may not think so, but many people have no idea that another person has taken their photos or written content and copied it elsewhere.

No, I don't believe one has to "opt in" to protect their work, they can "opt out" if they choose, but regardless of where the material came from, a magazine, a book, a newspaper or the Internet, it has this layer of protection. My wife's book is copyrighted, and just because excepts are on the publisher's website, doesn't mean that just anyone can copy it for their own use. There are rules by which you can do that, but they are not that broad.

[FCIN]

Embedding an image is different than hosting it, Embedding an image is still linking to an image except it shows the image instead of the link.

This brings up another issue that should be addressed. If you embed an image on your own web site or even on a forum group such as this one, that is hosted on another site, you are doing what is known as "Hot Linking". Every time someone views that embedded image, you are in effect, stealing bandwidth from the hosting site, for which someone else is paying.

So we need to keep that in mind and post a link to the image rather than embed it. Most good web hosting services have provisions to prevent "Hot Linking", but often the author of the web site isn't aware that this can be done and before he/she knows it, their personal and by default copyrighted images start showing up all over!

[tomustang]

Since the age where america became the lawsuit country as the most know form of fighting anything, copyright is a touchy subject. Fair use falls under more of these forum cases than anything else. Photos are posted on forums like this are mainly for reference use, unless we are showing our own work on a project.

Doesn't matter the reason, if something resembles 'law' of any kind then people tread lightly.

[Justinmiller171]

My belief is that when someone posts a picture on the internet they are essentially sharing it with the internet unless otherwise stated. Anyone can download the picture and use it for personal or reference use. However nobody can edit it and/or take ownership of it without permission.

For example; when I post a picture to Photobucket anybody can download it to their computer, or link to it for reference. However Nobody can re-upload my picture and claim it is theirs, they also cannot edit it and claim it is theirs.

Most photo-sharing sites have limits on how much bandwidth you can use, so if you embed an image you using up a persons bandwidth limit, and if they use up their bandwidth limit their pictures will then become unavailable for a certain period of time.

[ezdays]

My belief is that when someone posts a picture on the internet they are essentially sharing it with the internet unless otherwise stated. Anyone can download the picture and use it for personal or reference use. However nobody can edit it and/or take ownership of it without permission.

For example; when I post a picture to Photobucket anybody can download it to their computer, or link to it for reference. However Nobody can re-upload my picture and claim it is theirs, they also cannot edit it and claim it is theirs.

Most photo-sharing sites have limits on how much bandwidth you can use, so if you embed an image you using up a persons bandwidth limit, and if they use up their bandwidth limit their pictures will then become unavailable for a certain period of time.

I still maintain that everyone retains their copyright protection regardless of where they post. It is not automatically free to use, but the other way around. Here is an except from the Photobuckets terms of use:

Your Content

You retain all your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or while using Photobucket. This means that YOU own ALL the Content you post, but keep the following in mind:

If you don't want to share your Content with the world, you can mark it "private." If you do so, Photobucket removes the Content from search results on the Site and other Users (except those you invited) won't find it as a result of using the search feature of the Site. Also, we won't distribute it outside the Site.
Be aware, however, just because something is marked "private", we can't guarantee that only the people you invite will see it. Even if you mark something "private", users may be able to find the direct URL for an image through other search mechanisms, then share or link to it outside the Site.
Remember: if you share it from the Site, it's no longer private, even if you marked it "private."
If you remove your Content from the Site or mark as "private" something that previously had been public, Photobucket won't use it outside of the Site anymore and will hide it from search results on the Site, but we might still have it stored in backup files or on servers, and we are not responsible for sites on which it was shared before it was marked "private." Also, we will retain it if needed for any legal reason.
If you make your Content public, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to copy, distribute, publicly perform (e.g., stream it), publicly display (e.g., post it elsewhere), reproduce and create derivative works from it (meaning things based on it), anywhere, whether in print or any kind of electronic version that exists now or later developed, for any purpose, including a commercial purpose.
You are also giving other Users the right to copy, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and create derivative works from it via the Site or third party websites or applications (for example, via services allowing Users to order prints of Content or t-shirts and similar items containing Content, and via social media websites).
So when you post it, you are telling us and all other Users that the Content really, truly is yours - no one else's - and that the posting and use of your Content does not violate the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, contract rights, intellectual property rights, or human rights of somebody else. We're not responsible if it's not really yours or if you infringe on others' rights; you will be responsible if there are any costs for that.

So, basically it is true, if you post anything on Photobuckets and keep it public, you are allowing others to download or link to you content. You still retain the rights to it, you're just allowing others to use it, including Photobuckets. If it's marked "private", then there is some degree of protection. If I post those photos on my site or here, I automatically have that protection, but to keep away the ghouls and predators, it is a good idea to state that it is not public domain stuff. We would not think of using anyone else's photos here without their permission. For instance, if we use your photo in our eMag cover, we will ask you first. In the case of this issue where we are using a bunch of photos, I have a blanket request posted and so far no one has objected.

[MountainMan]

Then I suggest that none of you post any images except those which you can prove belong to you specifically. That should solve everyone's problems and anxieties.

Just out of curiousity, however, why do you suppose that companies like Bing and Google post millions of images without restrictions to their use? Does anyone here really believe that all of those images were taken by employees on behalf of those companies?

[ezdays]

Then I suggest that none of you post any images except those which you can prove belong to you specifically. That should solve everyone's problems and anxieties.

Just out of curiousity, however, why do you suppose that companies like Bing and Google post millions of images without restrictions to their use? Does anyone here really believe that all of those images were taken by employees on behalf of those companies?

Wouldn't it be nice if there were a definitive set of rules published somewhere on the Net so that everyone know what they can and cannot do with the content. I'm sure that proliferation of copyrighted material is ramped on the Internet, that doesn't make it right. But you are correct in pointing out that there are large corporations, like Google, that seem to make their own rules and no one challenges them. It would also be nice that a person could put together a site that the content cannot be copied and all browser could read but not download the information that people don't want copied. I can search for something like a particular gun and Google will come up with maybe fifty images of that gun and you have no idea where they came from. I've done searches for things like medicine or an ailment and found the identical information on maybe a dozen sites, word-for-word. Who originated it? Did that person lose his protection by not enforcing his rights, like they do for trademarks? It's a fine line, and we can only do what we believe is the right way. No one can fault us for that.

[MasonJar]

Google and Bing do not own the images, and their use falls under "fair use". You'll notice that (for example) Google's image results page has much smaller images than the actual one you get when you click. You'll also notice that when you do click, you are directed to the original page (or as near to original as Google can get).

Some places, like the aforementioned Flickr grant themselves a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to do pretty much whatever they like with your uploaded images. They do not claim copyright, but allowing them to copy and freely use and distribute the image pretty much renders your copyright moot. You are still free to sell, grant (or not) permissions, etc, but it's kind of pointless once the image is distributed this way.

As for information that appears word for word on multiple sites, some content is made expressly for this purpose. Some is distributed free of charge (maybe by a drug company, etc), and some requires a subscription fee (e.g. some news services). Although the originator still technically retains copyright, they are not likely to come after you for copying and distributing, since that is the reason the content was created in the first place. However, you still need to comply with the rules of use - for example, company X making a generic copy of a drug that company Y also makes, could not take Y's info sheet and simply copy it while replacing Y's name with X.

Bottom line is that copyright is inherent in all materials found on the Internet, regardless of how the originator acts, what people think of the medium, the intention of the originator, or the user's final use of the "acquired" material.

Andrew

[MountainMan]

Google and Bing do not own the images, and their use falls under "fair use". You'll notice that (for example) Google's image results page has much smaller images than the actual one you get when you click. You'll also notice that when you do click, you are directed to the original page (or as near to original as Google can get).


Some places, like the aforementioned Flickr grant themselves a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to do pretty much whatever they like with your uploaded images. They do not claim copyright, but allowing them to copy and freely use and distribute the image pretty much renders your copyright moot. You are still free to sell, grant (or not) permissions, etc, but it's kind of pointless once the image is distributed this way.

As for information that appears word for word on multiple sites, some content is made expressly for this purpose. Some is distributed free of charge (maybe by a drug company, etc), and some requires a subscription fee (e.g. some news services). Although the originator still technically retains copyright, they are not likely to come after you for copying and distributing, since that is the reason the content was created in the first place. However, you still need to comply with the rules of use - for example, company X making a generic copy of a drug that company Y also makes, could not take Y's info sheet and simply copy it while replacing Y's name with X.

Bottom line is that copyright is inherent in all materials found on the Internet, regardless of how the originator acts, what people think of the medium, the intention of the originator, or the user's final use of the "acquired" material.

Andrew

Drugs are not pictures, they are proprietary inventions under patent law, not copywrite. I practiced medicine for thirty years, and I know how it works. I also know that after a mere seven years those patent rights expire and it's a free-for-all.

Bing images all belong to Bing, according the "properties" label that pops up, and you get the image itself, not a site. Bing has cataloged millions of images of things people want to look up, and only those that are marked otherwise across the image or are blocked are not available to be copied for non-commercial uses by a visitor. That's one of the reasons I use Bing. I do not use Google if I can possibly avoid it because they are too heavily commercialized, have been caught repeatedly violating privacy rules, and agreed to censor the internet for China. A dog and a damned fool get one chance and they've had theirs.


It's obvious from the anxious tone of this discussion that we will no longer be seeing many - if any - "public images" without a major change in policy, because very few images that I have seen posted here from other sites give any credit to the originator. Too bad, because this is largely a visual hobby and very much a visual forum.

[ezdays]

...It's obvious from the anxious tone of this discussion that we will no longer be seeing many - if any - "public images" without a major change in policy, because very few images that I have seen posted here from other sites give any credit to the originator. Too bad, because this is largely a visual hobby and very much a visual forum.

You know, we can talk doom and gloom, but nothing is going to change. We have always kept an eye on what gets posted here and we seldom call anyone out for posting things they shouldn't. Sometimes if there's a question, we'll ask the person that posted it about it, sometimes we'll discuss it among ourselves just to get a consensus. We are not the photo police, we will not question every post and every photo. We are not legal experts either and so we have to make a judgment if something is "fair use" or "misuse". That's the best we can do, but we have an obligation to at least have a policy that makes sense. If we are ever asked by the rightful owner of material to remove something that they have not authorized to post, we will do so. In my nine years on these forums, I can only remember us being asked once to do just that, once... On other things we removed, except for spam, I'm not sure if we have done that more than a few times either. These forums are over eleven years old and that's not a bad record. Are there photos posted here that are in violation of these laws? Most likely, but our members are doing their best to not do it intentionally, and that's all we can ask.

My point is, don't get uptight, nothing is going to change, we are basically reviewing policy here and for the most part, making everyone aware of their rights and obligations pertaining to copyrighted material... that's all...

[steinjr]

You know, we can talk doom and gloom, but nothing is going to change.

- I was wondering if someone eventually would say something along those (very common sense) lines :-)

Grin,
Stein

[MasonJar]

Drugs are not pictures, they are proprietary inventions under patent law, not copywrite. I practiced medicine for thirty years, and I know how it works. I also know that after a mere seven years those patent rights expire and it's a free-for-all.

Bing images all belong to Bing, according the "properties" label that pops up, and you get the image itself, not a site.

It's obvious from the anxious tone of this discussion that we will no longer be seeing many - if any - "public images" without a major change in policy, because very few images that I have seen posted here from other sites give any credit to the originator. Too bad, because this is largely a visual hobby and very much a visual forum.

I was not speaking about the drugs themselves, but the information "literature" that goes with them.

I stand corrected on the Bing images. I had (mistakenly) assumed that you were speaking of the Google-type image search, which turns up other people's images, which are - rightly or wrongly - assumed to be in compliance with copyright permissions.

For the last point, I think Don summed it up pretty well. We use these discussions as a self-check, not as an opportunity to become the picture police.


Andrew

[Mike Kieran]

I'm sorry that I didn't respond earlier to this thread, the last two weeks have been crazy.

I was wondering if the copywrite laws are meant for people hoping to profit from copying someone else's work vs. the sharing of information. For example, I draw up a track plan. If a user on BB-G uses it to make a point of reference using my layout diagram (praise or critique), then by all means please do. BB-G is a non-profit information website that shares information. If a magazine (print or online) prints a copy of my layout drawing without contacting me, I could be a tad annoyed. They are selling their magazine, and therefore profiting with my intellectual property as a draw for their own personal gain.

[Charlie B]

I know the easy way to figure this out...If it isn't yours, it isn't yours, it is really that simple. Once in the public domain it is ours, until then it is not ours .
If you watch a movie, it isn't yours. If you buy a movie, you only buy the right to watch that movie. If you buy a song, you have a right to listen to it.
None of us would go to a hobby shop and take a locomotive because we like it, same here only things are easier. You are allowed to download for personal use only, no redistribution except when it is stated that you may do so.
Charlie

[Green_Elite_Cab]

I dont' see how posting a photo and linking back to the source violates fair use though. No one is making money on it, its just referencing it. When you psot a photo to a website like RR Picture Archives, you've pretty much implied you put the photo up there for reference use.

What a mess this all is. The wild west isn't dead, its just on the internet now. so much lawlessness!