| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/17/2007 04:12:07 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If the site has ads that are generating revenue for the site owners and they are using images to get the traffic that drive those ad revenues, that's commercial usage. |
But DPC runs Google ads for the unregistered users, Is that not similar :-))
It's a REALLY gray area for sure.... He could argue he is just like an ISP and the members are responsible for the content but it's a stretch.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 04:13:00 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If that was my image posted on that site, I would not want attribution, I would demand payment. |
If I post one of your images here would you demand payment from DPC?
|
Not if it's an image I have here on DPC, that falls under the TOS for DPC.
If it's an image I have posted elsewhere, and someone posted it on a site and the usage falls outside of "Fair Use", I'd come after the poster, not the host site. The host is immune from liability as long as they comply with the law on removing the infringed work and identifying the infringer.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 04:16:13 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If that was my image posted on that site, I would not want attribution, I would demand payment. |
If I post one of your images here would you demand payment from DPC?
|
Not if it's an image I have here on DPC, that falls under the TOS for DPC.
If it's an image I have posted elsewhere, and someone posted it on a site and the usage falls outside of "Fair Use", I'd come after the poster, not the host site. The host is immune from liability as long as they comply with the law on removing the infringed work and identifying the infringer. |
Bingo. Like a link under every image allowing you to report it as stolen?
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 04:18:27 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If the site has ads that are generating revenue for the site owners and they are using images to get the traffic that drive those ad revenues, that's commercial usage. |
But DPC runs Google ads for the unregistered users, Is that not similar :-))
It's a REALLY gray area for sure.... He could argue he is just like an ISP and the members are responsible for the content but it's a stretch. |
It's not gray at all.
You uploaded the image yourself to DPC and agreed to the TOS, part of which grants DPC the right to use your image in that manner. You, as the creator and copyright holder, licensed that usage to DPC.
Swiping an image from the net and posting it elsewhere to a site without the consent, knowledge of or license from the copyright holder is a very different matter. The creator and copyright holder NEVER granted permission for that usage.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 04:23:34 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If that was my image posted on that site, I would not want attribution, I would demand payment. |
If I post one of your images here would you demand payment from DPC?
|
Not if it's an image I have here on DPC, that falls under the TOS for DPC.
If it's an image I have posted elsewhere, and someone posted it on a site and the usage falls outside of "Fair Use", I'd come after the poster, not the host site. The host is immune from liability as long as they comply with the law on removing the infringed work and identifying the infringer. |
Bingo. Like a link under every image allowing you to report it as stolen? |
They also have to comply with requests to identify the infringer. It's not enough to just take down the stolen image and say "OOPS". Otherwise, they are liable for the whole thing.
I never said I'd go after the site. It's the poster whose head I want on a pike. |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 04:24:22 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If that was my image posted on that site, I would not want attribution, I would demand payment. |
If I post one of your images here would you demand payment from DPC?
|
Not if it's an image I have here on DPC, that falls under the TOS for DPC.
If it's an image I have posted elsewhere, and someone posted it on a site and the usage falls outside of "Fair Use", I'd come after the poster, not the host site. The host is immune from liability as long as they comply with the law on removing the infringed work and identifying the infringer. |
Bingo. Like a link under every image allowing you to report it as stolen? |
So I can start a website, lift images and rake in the cash from ad sales, and when the photographer finds out I'm doing that they have to email me and ask me to stop; and that's all there is to it?
I asked my cat what he thought of his photo being used without permission and here's what he said:
 |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 04:28:52 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by bod:
I still fail to see where I have given up the right to control my own images. A sublicense of "Image Reuse Permitted" is never going to include "Image Reuse Prohibited" no matter how you dress it up. You can refuse to grant anything you want except the licence I place my images under. |
Post your license agreement in the image details then.
We've adopted a blanket file-renaming as the most simple and practical name that the images are not in the public domain as a "service" to the vast majority of our members -- it is not preactical to customize that message for each user's licensing preferences for every picture.
I'm *really* sorry that our attemt to protect our members' images from unauthorized use conflictes with your desire to give away your images, but -- my personal opinion -- I wish you'd find something else to complain about. This kind of sniping about little annoyances which require extraordinary efforts to correct is very depressing. |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 04:37:38 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
So I can start a website, lift images and rake in the cash from ad sales, and when the photographer finds out I'm doing that they have to email me and ask me to stop; and that's all there is to it? |
I'd love to say no but that's not far from the truth at the moment!
Your cat has the right idea : )
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm *really* sorry that our attemt to protect our members' images from unauthorized use conflictes with your desire to give away your images, but -- my personal opinion -- I wish you'd find something else to complain about. This kind of sniping about little annoyances which require extraordinary efforts to correct is very depressing. |
I am not giving away my images. Get your facts straight.
"Little annoyances"? You are relicensing all my photos without my permission. You expect me to go through every single one of my images one by one adding text explaining that this site is wrongly trying to prohibit reuse of my images and you call that minor?! How about you provide a simple on/off switch for mass image relicensing instead of sniping at a concerned user?
You forgot to close your sarcasm tags.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 04:40:04 PM · #34 |
can say funy schidt? Hugely entertaining... bookmarked :)
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 04:54:38 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
So I can start a website, lift images and rake in the cash from ad sales, and when the photographer finds out I'm doing that they have to email me and ask me to stop; and that's all there is to it?
I asked my cat what he thought of his photo being used without permission and here's what he said:
|
No, that's not all there is to it.
You're entitled to recover damages from the infringer. The site owner is only immune if they are not the infringer and are not aware that the image is stolen. They also have to remove the image when notified and help identify the poster. So, if, you, as the site owner are lifting images, there's no immunity.
If simply removing the image is not enough satisfaction for you, sue the infringer. Go consult an IP attorney. They'll tell you if you have a case. Of course you registered your images, right? That lets you also recover all legal fees from the infringer as well, which means the infringer pays your attorney as well as their own. Usually, sending an invoice for the illegal usage (3-5 times the normal rate is a good start) and a stern letter from your attorney are enough to drive the infringing party to ask for a settlement. They do this because they will likely go consult with their attorney who will tell them that they really screwed up, stealing images is a big no-no, that taking it to trial will be much more expensive for them than settling and that since they are blatantly in the wrong, they will lose. They may want to negotiate a lower figure, telling you some sob story about how their kid needs braces or whatever. You can choose to take less or not. Once you negotiate a settlement, they write a nice big check. There will usually be some non-disclosure agreement, which means that you can't go blabbing about how so-and-so stole your images and you made them pay X thousands of dollars for being a dirty thief. At the same time, they can't go flapping their yabber hole about what an A-hole you are for taking all of their money over an innocent mistake. |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 04:57:58 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by rox_rox:
So I can start a website, lift images and rake in the cash from ad sales, and when the photographer finds out I'm doing that they have to email me and ask me to stop; and that's all there is to it? |
I'd love to say no but that's not far from the truth at the moment!
Your cat has the right idea : )
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm *really* sorry that our attemt to protect our members' images from unauthorized use conflictes with your desire to give away your images, but -- my personal opinion -- I wish you'd find something else to complain about. This kind of sniping about little annoyances which require extraordinary efforts to correct is very depressing. |
I am not giving away my images. Get your facts straight.
"Little annoyances"? You are relicensing all my photos without my permission. You expect me to go through every single one of my images one by one adding text explaining that this site is wrongly trying to prohibit reuse of my images and you call that minor?! How about you provide a simple on/off switch for mass image relicensing instead of sniping at a concerned user?
You forgot to close your sarcasm tags. |
Wait wait wait. Let me figure this out real quick...
the big yellow one is the sun!? |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 05:00:13 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm *really* sorry that our attemt to protect our members' images from unauthorized use conflictes with your desire to give away your images, but -- my personal opinion -- I wish you'd find something else to complain about. This kind of sniping about little annoyances which require extraordinary efforts to correct is very depressing. |
I am not giving away my images. Get your facts straight.
"Little annoyances"? You are relicensing all my photos without my permission. You expect me to go through every single one of my images one by one adding text explaining that this site is wrongly trying to prohibit reuse of my images and you call that minor?! How about you provide a simple on/off switch for mass image relicensing instead of sniping at a concerned user?
You forgot to close your sarcasm tags. |
Did you post your images here by choice? Was a gun held to your head?
Unless you were somehow forced into uploading your images, you agreed to the TOS.
I'm sure that you can create your own site to post your images and give them away under whatever licensing scheme you want. Just don't expect DPC to be that site for you. |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 05:00:27 PM · #38 |
| Just out of curiosity, how far should the site owner dig to determine if a photo he uses is sent to him by the creator, or if the sender just lifted it off a site? I understand doing your due diligences but at some point, you have to just take the persons word for it, and deal with it when the problem arises. |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 05:03:06 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
Just out of curiosity, how far should the site owner dig to determine if a photo he uses is sent to him by the creator, or if the sender just lifted it off a site? I understand doing your due diligences but at some point, you have to just take the persons word for it, and deal with it when the problem arises. |
They don't have to do anything unless they are notified an image is illegally posted.
After that, they have to comply with providing the poster's information. |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 05:08:11 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Did you post your images here by choice? Was a gun held to your head?
Unless you were somehow forced into uploading your images, you agreed to the TOS.
I'm sure that you can create your own site to post your images and give them away under whatever licensing scheme you want. Just don't expect DPC to be that site for you. |
So if one day DPC decided to "sublicense" all your images under a Creative Commons license that would be okay? That's basically what is happening to me, except the other way round. I was using the CC license on this site long before the restricting text was added to images.
No, nobody held a gun to my head, but nobody told me the site would start forcing their own terms on my property either. I still agree to the TOS, but that TOS does not allow this site to stop me from licensing my images as I want to.
Message edited by author 2007-07-17 17:16:12.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 05:29:39 PM · #41 |
I know these threads are a-dime-a-dozen and that the arguments will never be solved.
This really irks me though, because I'm working hard to make an honest living only, to find out that all I had to do was make a funny blog using lifted images; and I could be retiring soon.
 bod, there's some pretty good stuff in your portfolio. I bet I could think up a good caption for that rooster;)
Message edited by author 2007-07-17 17:30:02. |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 05:30:32 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Did you post your images here by choice? Was a gun held to your head?
Unless you were somehow forced into uploading your images, you agreed to the TOS.
I'm sure that you can create your own site to post your images and give them away under whatever licensing scheme you want. Just don't expect DPC to be that site for you. |
So if one day DPC decided to "sublicense" all your images under a Creative Commons license that would be okay? That's basically what is happening to me, except the other way round. I was using the CC license on this site long before the restricting text was added to images.
No, nobody held a gun to my head, but nobody told me the site would start forcing their own terms on my property either. I still agree to the TOS, but that TOS does not allow this site to stop me from licensing my images as I want to. |
The DPC TOS do not prevent you from licensing your images as you wish. You can license them to others using Creative Commons.
The DPC TOS do set out the specific license that you grant to DPC to display your images. DPC does not require nor ask for the right to re-license the images to others under Creative Commons.
The licence you have given DPC does not allow DPC to relicense your images. I think that you must see that DPC cannot give to others something that it does not ask for nor have itself.
You are free to re-license your images to other people on such terms as you may wish, including Creative Commons or completely royalty free.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 05:31:27 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
This really irks me though, because I'm working hard to make an honest living only, to find out that all I had to do was make a funny blog using lifted images; and I could be retiring soon. |
ha, give that a try. :) I think there's a fair amount of luck there. I don't think many people can say, "I'm going to set out and create a simply blog that gets 1.5 millions hits" and do it.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 05:39:07 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
The DPC TOS do not prevent you from licensing your images as you wish. You can license them to others using Creative Commons.
The DPC TOS do set out the specific license that you grant to DPC to display your images. DPC does not require nor ask for the right to re-license the images to others under Creative Commons.
The licence you have given DPC does not allow DPC to relicense your images. I think that you must see that DPC cannot give to others something that it does not ask for nor have itself.
You are free to re-license your images to other people on such terms as you may wish, including Creative Commons or completely royalty free. |
Exactly.
I think you completely missed my point, but you've backed up exactly what I'm trying to say : )
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 05:40:41 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by rox_rox:
This really irks me though, because I'm working hard to make an honest living only, to find out that all I had to do was make a funny blog using lifted images; and I could be retiring soon. |
ha, give that a try. :) I think there's a fair amount of luck there. I don't think many people can say, "I'm going to set out and create a simply blog that gets 1.5 millions hits" and do it. |
Great! Thanks a lot for bursting my hypothetical bubble;) |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 05:53:51 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by bod:
I think you completely missed my point, but you've backed up exactly what I'm trying to say : ) |
What is the issue if you accept that you have given a non-exclusive licence to DPC to display your images, and DPC does so? Your rights are not otherwise infringed and you can offer the image to others on whatever terms you wish to offer and they choose to accept (be that creative commons or anything else).
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 06:10:42 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by bod:
A sublicense of "Image Reuse Permitted" is never going to include "Image Reuse Prohibited" no matter how you dress it up. You can refuse to grant anything you want except the licence I place my images under |
Is the issue that you think that DPC is displaying images in a way that breaches your preferred Creative Commons licence? If so, you need to think differently about the way in which images may be licensed.
You can licence the same image in many ways to different people. You can licence it under creative commons to Spazmo99, then again on a royalty free basis to rox_rox, then again to DPC under a specific licence that permits it only to display the image on DPC.
All of these licences exist at the same time. Spazmo99 will have certain rights under the licence you gave him that DPC does not have, but cannot use it commercially under the CC terms. However, the licence you gave rox_rox would allow commercial use, so she could do so.
The licences that you create in respect of your images do not attach in the image itself, but are personal to the people to whom you give a licence.
Message edited by author 2007-07-17 18:12:36.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 06:14:43 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by DowseDesigns:
Is an awfully interesting area of confusion... He's not actually profiting off of the images, but without them he wouldn't be able to sell the advertising. I wonder if anyone who "owns" one of these images has ever tried to go after him. |
He is using the images commercially. There is no great confusion here.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 06:23:00 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by bod:
A sublicense of "Image Reuse Permitted" is never going to include "Image Reuse Prohibited" no matter how you dress it up. You can refuse to grant anything you want except the licence I place my images under |
Is the issue that you think that DPC is displaying images in a way that breaches your preferred Creative Commons licence? If so, you need to think differently about the way in which images may be licensed.
You can licence the same image in many ways to different people. You can licence it under creative commons to Spazmo99, then again on a royalty free basis to rox_rox, then again to DPC under a specific licence that permits it only to display the image on DPC.
All of these licences exist at the same time. Spazmo99 will have certain rights under the licence you gave him that DPC does not have, but cannot use it commercially under the CC terms. However, the licence you gave rox_rox would allow commercial use, so she could do so.
The licences that you create in respect of your images do not attach in the image itself, but are personal to the people to whom you give a licence. |
The issue is that DPC are attaching restrictions to the images which override any Creative Comnmons license I want to use. They are effectively saying that whatever I say about reusing my images is untrue. I don't believe I ever agreed to them doing so.
This is getting beyond my comprehension now anyway, and the SC seem to consider my copyright to be a "little annoyance" so I'll just let Larry Lessig and the Creative Commons mob sort it out for me : )
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 06:26:06 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by bod:
The site [Icanhaz...] does license everything under a creative commons license ... ... so they do know something about copyright, and they're not claiming any ownership of any images. Unlike this site which has taken my Creative Commons licensed images and added its own "Image Reuse Prohibited" restriction on them.
|
The Icanhaz site uses images for which it does not have the appropriate licence. Unlike DPC which does have the appropriate licence from you to display your images.
|
|
