Forum Images

[Chris]

Some issues have cropped up elsewhere that this site is also vulnerable to, so I wish to mention them.

1. Be careful what images you post. For instance, it is technically copyright infringement to just copy some image from somewhere without permission and post it. It can create work for me when I get some letter from a lawyer complaining about it. There is no liability for me there, so long as I act on to the complaint, thanks to federal law, but for you the poster there is no such protection. Its just not a good idea. The places most likely to go after you on this stuff are stock photo type places, they make their living sometimes doing this. It is best if you limit pictures you post to pictures you've taken. If there is something else you want to share, you can always link to it.

2. No sexy images. The line drawn here is way way way on the prude side, it isn't my choice, Google is dictating this. Most people I think would instinctively think that okay, a picture of naked woman is bad, but a girl in a bikini would be okay because we see them on magazine covers while buying groceries, or on billboards, or on TV (and lets not even mention what you'll see on MTV), etc. But no. PG-13 not okay, PG not okay probably, at least, not when it comes to sexiness. If you would be uncomfortable staring at the picture for 20 minutes while your mom, grandmother, daughter, a priest, a nun, rabbi, bishop, imam, all look over your shoulder, don't post it. On another site I got in trouble because a member had posted a picture of a girl in tight jeans, everything was covered, and as tight as they were it was still denim, not some sheer fabric. I think it is fairly ridiculous, the modern world has moved beyond Victorian sensibilities, but I don't make these rules, without the Google Ads this site couldn't exist.

In furtherance of these two rules I've added a setting where unregistered members will no longer be able to view photos. This may encourage more registrations, as well as create a layer of privacy around photos that will be slightly protective I hope, should anything slip through the cracks.

[Rick]

One thing we've tried to do, and I'm guilty as anyone one, is watch the copyright infringement issue. We've had members copy and past whole pages from other sites before and we try to stay on top of that. It's pretty easy to do a search and find the page it comes from then just delete it. Pics are another issue. Personally, I'll have to pull my own reigns in on that one.

[LowKey]

The big stock photo sites are getting really good about finding their images on your sites. The site you swiped it from may have a license for it but you don't and they will send you a bill.

Does this mean we never see THAT photo ever again?
Unless that really IS Rick...
Still, who'd want to look at THAT photo for 20 minutes.
:scared:

[welderguy]

serious question! How or who decides what is too sexy? what if I post a picture of a boating trip and there are shirtless men or women in shorts, will this anger the google gods?

[Ken]

Here's a good article on "Fair Use" of Copyrighted Images

http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/copyright-fair-use-and-how-it-works-for-online-images/


Here are a couple of sites that permit use of their photos. Signing up for a free membership may be required.
http://www.stockfreeimages.com/?gclid=CLfjqMCY07kCFRKg4Aod-zgAMQ (http://www.stockfreeimages.com/?gclid=CLfjqMCY07kCFRKg4Aod-zgAMQ)

http://www.dreamstime.com/?gclid=CPjdjNaY07kCFYqZ4AodOWkA6Q

[Ken]

serious question! How or who decides what is too sexy? what if I post a picture of a boating trip and there are shirtless men or women in shorts, will this anger the google gods?


Here's a good rule of thumb: ANYTHING with my picture in it - even if it's only my face - is way too sexy for anything on the internet. :innocent:

[crashdive123]

I don't have an answer for you WG.

I am as guilty as they come for grabbing images from the net and posting them. I will stop. We can still link to them so that they can be viewed - just not post with the img code.

[welderguy]

Here's a good rule of thumb: ANYTHING with my picture in it - even if it's only my face - is way too sexy for anything on the internet. :innocent:

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAAAA AAAAA!!!!!!!!! cough cough, Oh yes yes , I can see how that would be true..... HAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHA

[welderguy]

I don't have an answer for you WG.

I am as guilty as they come for grabbing images from the net and posting them. I will stop. We can still link to them so that they can be viewed - just not post with the img code.

No issues, I will make sure no more web grabs.

[crashdive123]

Here's a good rule of thumb: ANYTHING with my picture in it - even if it's only my face - is way too sexy for anything on the internet. :innocent:

I suppose that's one way to look at it. I wonder if 2D would agree?:whistling:

[LowKey]

Ken, how is this different from "Derivative Work" which is not allowed without permission of the image owner.
It sure didn't work for Shepherd Fairey.

#3: Have you transformed the image? If the new work which incorporates the copyrighted image is a “transformative work”—what you created no longer resembles the original—there is a greater likelihood of finding an exception to copyright infringement.

Also, beware of hotlinking. Some people don't like their bandwidth compromised by a hot link from an outside source. I've seen instances on other forums where the owner of the image being hotlinked replaced it with something so totally offensive it made your eyes burn.

[crashdive123]

I think that was one of Chris's points. No more hot linking.

[Ken]

Ken, how is this different from "Derivative Work" which is not allowed without permission of the image owner.
It sure didn't work for Shepherd Fairey.

A derivative work is, in plain words, a modification of the original work. The law on the fair use doctrine is evolving every week, and there are seemingly contradictory opinions that have been handed down in the various federal circuits.

I've only had the displeasure of being involved in one intellectual property/fair use case, and that involved a consolidated lawsuit wherein I defended manufacturer who hired musicians to reproduce the music (no lyrics) made popular by numerous recording artists that he used to produce several hundred thousand karaoke discs. The damages sought against my client were in excess of $100,000,000.00. My job was "damage control." We settled with a payment of less than $100,000.00.

Without a doubt, the best bet here is no more hot links.

[Rick]

There are a number of ways they can trace who is using their pictures depending on how they have them posted. Tineye is a software program that can be used. Who Stole My Pictures is a Firefox add on that does a reverse image search. WMSP is another or you can do a simple search by right clicking on your picture then selecting:

Copy Image Location (Firefox)
Copy Image Address (Safari)
Right Click Image, Select Properties, Highlight the Address URL then Ctrl-C in IE. Then paste it into Google and hit enter. It should display all the sites using your image.

That's important for those that make a living with their photos and we have several on here that do.

In any case, the point is it is becoming easier and easier to track down who and where the photo is used. If you hot link a photo here then Chris has to deal with an upset copyright holder and/or a lawyer.

[Ken]

Ummmm. How about our avatars? :innocent:

[welderguy]

Ummmm. How about our avatars? :innocent:

HHHMMM good point.

[Rick]

That is a good question. There are a lot of freeware avatars on the net and of course any picture in the public domain is okay.

https://www.google.com/search?q=freeware+avatars&rlz=1C1RNCN_enUS360US360&oq=freeware+avatars&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3.4708j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[1stimestar]

Ken, how is this different from "Derivative Work" which is not allowed without permission of the image owner.
It sure didn't work for Shepherd Fairey.


Also, beware of hotlinking. Some people don't like their bandwidth compromised by a hot link from an outside source. I've seen instances on other forums where the owner of the image being hotlinked replaced it with something so totally offensive it made your eyes burn.

Heh, I've done that. Here's the image I replaced it with. Careful, it might be too sexy for some on here.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/1stimestar/bellycastnatalie2jpg.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/1stimestar/media/bellycastnatalie2jpg.jpg.html)

[welderguy]

Heh, I've done that. Here's the image I replaced it with. Careful, it might be too sexy for some on here.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/1stimestar/bellycastnatalie2jpg.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/1stimestar/media/bellycastnatalie2jpg.jpg.html)

SO how did you get 2dumb and ken to pose for that picture!!!

[1stimestar]

One thing I would like everyone to know and I run into this fairly often, just because a photo doesn't have © and/or a name it doesn't mean that it is not copyrighted. A photo is copyrighted the instant the photographer creates it by pushing the button on the camera. Cropping the © off the picture does not make it free for the taking.

On my blog, I can tell what pictures are looked at and where the person looking has come from and where they go when they leave my site. Some interesting things come from that information. I also regularly do an image search for my most popular photos. I've found a couple over the years.

[1stimestar]

SO how did you get 2dumb and ken to pose for that picture!!!

Oh you know, I may be a rough and tough Alaskan chick but I used to be a sweet talking, eyelash batting, southern bell. It comes in handy.

[Chris]

Technically, using an avatar from UP is infringement (you could always argue fair use, and that issue is so grey its hardly worth talking about), using an avatar from Willy Wonka is infringement. I'm covered by the DMCA, and it is highly unlikely someone is going to sue you personally, especially Disney. Disney, and media companies like it, generally don't want to have the news stories where they sue fans. The people that do sue are the people who sell photos (the stock photo places, corbis, gettyimages, etc), and they have software that scours the Internet looking for their work. So its like, that really nice landscape photograph. Like say the one in the forum header, that I bought from a stockphoto place. It isn't something you'd recognize as protected, just some photograph, but its owned by a big stock photo company and threatening people is their bread and butter.

I'm mostly concerned about the sexy picture issues. So we have to make sure to keep things rated G. The copyright issue, just use a little common sense. You're not going to be sued for reposting a meme that is all over the internet (and actually you're unlikely to get sued for anything you post, but it does create work for me responding to a DMCA complaint if it get it). But if you find some really nice nature photo you want to share, but you're not sure if it is protected, err on the side of caution and link to it.

[welderguy]

Thanks Chris, If needed I have no issue changing my avatar!

[thefemalesurvivalist]

One thing I would like everyone to know and I run into this fairly often, just because a photo doesn't have © and/or a name it doesn't mean that it is not copyrighted. A photo is copyrighted the instant the photographer creates it by pushing the button on the camera. Cropping the © off the picture does not make it free for the taking.

On my blog, I can tell what pictures are looked at and where the person looking has come from and where they go when they leave my site. Some interesting things come from that information. I also regularly do an image search for my most popular photos. I've found a couple over the years.


hum, that is a scary thought, I haven't done that and wonder what exactly you type in...your name and Images?

[1stimestar]

hum, that is a scary thought, I haven't done that and wonder what exactly you type in...your name and Images?

My favorite way is to just click and drag my picture into the search box of google images. So easy.

[RangerXanatos]

Would my avatar be considered too sexy since I'm a superhero?

[woodsman86]

Would my avatar be considered too sexy since I'm a superhero?

Perhaps some pasties would help tone it down a bit :)

[Chris]

One thing I would like everyone to know and I run into this fairly often, just because a photo doesn't have © and/or a name it doesn't mean that it is not copyrighted. A photo is copyrighted the instant the photographer creates it by pushing the button on the camera. Cropping the © off the picture does not make it free for the taking.

On my blog, I can tell what pictures are looked at and where the person looking has come from and where they go when they leave my site. Some interesting things come from that information. I also regularly do an image search for my most popular photos. I've found a couple over the years.

A picture I had taken of my front yard garden found its way into an ad for a large fairly well known company. I told them I thought $500 was fair, and they paid.

[Ken]

A picture I had taken of my front yard garden found its way into an ad for a large fairly well known company. I told them I thought $500 was fair, and they paid.

I'm waiting until Time and G.Q. magazines steal my photo for their "Man of the Year" covers.

[thefemalesurvivalist]

holy moly....but I'm sorta scared to do a search like this....you know what "they" say, never google yourself...you won't sleep well for a LONG time

[Rick]

I googled myself plenty of times and it's not that bad. They didn't have any of the serial killer convictions (overturned on appeal), stalking arrests (simple misunderstanding) or even the thingy about the SWAT standoff. All in all I thought I came out looking pretty good.

[BENESSE]

Would my avatar be considered too sexy since I'm a superhero?

Most definitely!
Might consider switching the skirt for some tights. :innocent: