Image usage spats

Stegosaurus

Stegosaurus

Suspended / Banned
Messages
376
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm fairly new to this forum, but I have now seen a couple of instances where people have been fairly brutally slapped down for inappropriate posting of the images of others without providing the appropriate credit to the author so I'm guessing you are pretty hot on that.

I'm curious, why do these standards not apply to the 'funnies' thread (much of which, by the way, occupies what many would consider to be the offensive end of the spectrum if you are not a Jim Davidson fan). It is not uncommon for such images to be spread around without the permission of the author, or the hapless subject. Do people check the original permissions? Where do you draw the line?
 
Last edited:
Agree on the Jim Davidson bit, steered clear from that thread for a long time.

Not sure about attribution, but it is an interesting question, also about if there are other imagers that it would be OK to embed without attribution, an astonishingly well known HCB, for example?
 
Stegosaurus said:
I'm fairly new to this forum, but I have now seen a couple of instances where people have been fairly brutally slapped down for inappropriate posting of the images of others without providing the appropriate credit to the author so I'm guessing you are pretty hot on that.
Click to expand...

Posting with a credit is breaking copyright rules, unless you have the permission of the copyright owner.
Otherwise every magazine / website would be stealing photos and simply crediting you. No, they need to not only pay, but check permissions.

Lets look at a very common, virtually every day scenario for me. A client pays me to shoot whatever and they want exclusive and sole rights to use those images for their advertising or whatever (the exception being I can use them in my portfolio) but even then there are often restrictions I may not be able to use them until the magazine has published them and that edition has been removed from the shelf or I can't use them for 6 months. There are also common inhouse arguments between different countries of large businesses that may restrict the use of images to say only Europe.

So you need to ask if you can publish an image to start with. You could find yourself in a legal problem.

Getting back to your question, there are a few exceptions. Use for legitimate journalistic reasons and as parody. But they have to be used in specific ways and follow certain rules.
 
riddell said:
Posting with a credit is breaking copyright rules, unless you have the permission of the copyright owner.
Otherwise every magazine / website would be stealing photos and simply crediting you. No, they need to not only pay, but check permissions.

Lets look at a very common, virtually every day scenario for me. A client pays me to shoot whatever and they want exclusive and sole rights to use those images for their advertising or whatever (the exception being I can use them in my portfolio) but even then there are often restrictions I may not be able to use them until the magazine has published them and that edition has been removed from the shelf or I can't use them for 6 months. There are also common inhouse arguments between different countries of large businesses that may restrict the use of images to say only Europe.

So you need to ask if you can publish an image to start with. You could find yourself in a legal problem.

Getting back to your question, there are a few exceptions. Use for legitimate journalistic reasons and as parody. But they have to be used in specific ways and follow certain rules.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I am not challenging copyright law, I am asking why the law is not applied to the 'funnies' thread.
 
Having a fair amount of experience in chasing up image theft ,and a degree of success all I can say is it’s a grey area .if a company steals/uses your image for a profit ,then yes you can sue ,if a private individual copies and pastes your image for no percunairy advantage then you can’t .
The problem has been amplified over the last few years by the perpetrators getting clever so now hot linking is the thing I.e they post a pic on a website but when you click on it ,it simply goes to your image ..the worst one for this is piniterest ... as well as that copyright laws only apply in certain countries so although hosting may seem to come from the U.S.A followin* the link leads to a rented office in China or Russia . There is money being made by someone along the line but stopping it is nigh on impossible
 
Stegosaurus said:
With all due respect, I am not challenging copyright law, I am asking why the law is not applied to the 'funnies' thread.
Click to expand...
As explained above it’s not for profit ... faceberk and Twitter are the general places to get these images from
 
Stegosaurus said:
I'm fairly new to this forum, but I have now seen a couple of instances where people have been fairly brutally slapped down for inappropriate posting of the images of others without providing the appropriate credit to the author so I'm guessing you are pretty hot on that.

I'm curious, why do these standards not apply to the 'funnies' thread (much of which, by the way, occupies what many would consider to be the offensive end of the spectrum if you are not a Jim Davidson fan). It is not uncommon for such images to be spread around without the permission of the author, or the hapless subject. Do people check the original permissions? Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

What images are you referring to? The funnies thread is filled mostly with jokes and memes.

Stegosaurus said:
I few here are posting for profit. By your logic what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and it's ok to post any image in these forums?
Click to expand...

Do you have an example of where someone here posts for profit?
 
Marc said:
Do you have an example of where someone here posts for profit?
Click to expand...

What I was trying to say (the typo doesn't help) is that as people generally don't post here for profit, arguably posting somebody else's attributed image comes in that grey area termed 'fair use' because it's usually for purposes of discussion.

However, who bothers actually checking where their funny originated? Just because something has become viral, it doesn't mean the rights of the originator have changed. Many of the funnies are cartoons, and I'm sure there are not a few cartoonists grinding their teeth as their hard work does the rounds for free.

The people who are posting for profit are the advertisers. There's been a book on Norfolk plugged recently for example.
 
Copyright law in the UK (and elsewhere - it obviously varies by jurisdiction) is badly in need of a major overhaul in the internet age. Apart from the most egregious examples, it is almost impossible to enforce - there are all sorts of cultural and technical issues today that were not envisaged when the laws were originally drafted.

The vast majority of people regard anything available on the internet (not just images, but music, films, books, software, news, etc) as being "free"; that ship has sailed and it would be all but impossible to change that perception.

And who do you sue when a copy of an image owned by an English photographer is stored on a server in Korea which is owned by a company in China but managed by a Russian organisation and is then linked on a Canadian forum whose ISP is in Ireland, and is then viewed on a browser in Costa Rica?
 
Contax said:
Copyright law in the UK (and elsewhere - it obviously varies by jurisdiction) is badly in need of a major overhaul in the internet age.
Click to expand...

I think even before that, even before digital took off you'd have baulked at wedding picture reprint prices and finding a way of reproducing the pictures cheaply.
 
This is a question I've wondered about too. Unlike the OP I have no dislike of the funnies thread, but there does seem to be a disconnect.

I'm sure most memes (though not all) would be considered public domain, but not cartoons or funny photos.
 
riddell said:
No you can't, and you can't take text from elsewhere and repost either.
Click to expand...
The point youve missed is that appears to be the forums rules.
not just photos either, the mods come down quite heavily on discussion of video or software piracy.

but if you want to scan a ‘classic’ 70’s postcard as a joke, fill yer boots!
 
Do the copyright laws not apply to '70s postcards then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top