| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/20/2008 05:41:03 PM · #426 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Stock sites require releases because they are reselling the images for commercial use; their customers require assurance that such a release is in effect before they use the picture.
Since images posted at DPC are for educational purposes and not for commercial resale or reproduction releases are not required by the site -- the responsibility for obtaining permission to post the image rests entirely with the photographer.
I suspect that if the model were to contact us directly and say that some photo was uploaded without permission, we would probably have to consider removing not only the photo, but the photographer's account for a major TOS violation. |
It could be well argued that this being a non-commercial (educational) forum that photographer does not need permission from a model to submit his own copyrighted work for peer review.
Just a thought
Message edited by author 2008-02-20 17:41:46.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 05:49:57 PM · #427 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
It could be well argued that this being a non-commercial (educational) forum that photographer does not need permission from a model to submit his own copyrighted work for peer review.
Just a thought |
Perhaps, but I don't see how that transfers any liability to the site, which has no knowledge of or involvement in the arrangements between photographer and model.
Only in the pharmaceutical industry does "submitting for peer review" include the premise of the submitter being able to unilaterally edit the reviewers' comments. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 05:59:38 PM · #428 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by nomad469:
Look ... The comment is there ...
Motivation and intent for it remaining is not germane to the conversation on any level.
The comment is there. There was a level of offense. Deal with it ...
As far as your retraction demand...I'm presently disinclined to acquiesce to your request |
But it is not an example of a comment that has made it through the SC's filter since there is evidence that the SC has not received a report of it and you just get all hissy when we ask for some substantiation that is has any relation to this conversation. Until we hear that the comment has been reported, has been reviewed by SC and has been deemed non-libelous or whatever, it does not serve to show that there is a problem with the system consisting of such.
Of course once that was done, you would have to show how the comment was specifically defamatory as opposed to simply not a very nice thing to say.
So the bottom line is - do you have any examples that show there is a problem with the current system with the SC or not? |
EDIT: Nevermind
Message edited by author 2008-02-20 18:00:53.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 06:03:59 PM · #429 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The ToS is an agreement between the site and the photographer. Where is the model in that agreement? There is no agreement regarding the site's use of a person's likeness, a person not subject to that agreement. |
Where is the model? The model gives release to the PHOTOGRAPHER. The PHOTOGRAPHER then bears responsibility for how the image is used. See example below. |
No.
That is wrong, the liability for the misuse of someone's likeness extends to the publisher. If the publisher does not have a release from the person in the image, they do not have the right to use that person's likeness and are liable. |
Again, the Photographer is the Publisher. DPC is only the place.
If DPC were a magazine, then all the content would be reviewed and there would be commercial cooperation. DPC is not. It is merely a place where people can display their own work.
If you own the photograph, it's your responsibility to place it appropriately and your responsibility to ensure that it is used in accordance with the model's wishes.
If you do not require the model's permission for one reason or another and they still complain, there isn't much they can do about it. See Tabloids. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 06:08:09 PM · #430 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by nomad469:
It could be well argued that this being a non-commercial (educational) forum that photographer does not need permission from a model to submit his own copyrighted work for peer review.
Just a thought |
Perhaps, but I don't see how that transfers any liability to the site, which has no knowledge of or involvement in the arrangements between photographer and model.
Only in the pharmaceutical industry does "submitting for peer review" include the premise of the submitter being able to unilaterally edit the reviewers' comments. |
HHHHmmmmm ....
No actually it doesnt nor was I implying that it did...
I actually find this whole turn of the coversation a little strange and on this portion I have to side with the opinions expressed by others ... I do not think that even under the current broken systm the SC would let stand a comment that would cross the line into something that needed to be litigated.
Delving into release...use...and liability for use is a interesting conversation but to me isn't really relivent.
Releases dont even come into play. this is not a commercial venue (for the purposes of sales of the images)
A photographer can selfpromote his images without release as long as the model in question is not defamed by that action.
ETA: Forget the rest ... went down a rabbit hole
Message edited by author 2008-02-20 18:41:31.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 06:43:32 PM · #431 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The ToS is an agreement between the site and the photographer. Where is the model in that agreement? There is no agreement regarding the site's use of a person's likeness, a person not subject to that agreement. |
Where is the model? The model gives release to the PHOTOGRAPHER. The PHOTOGRAPHER then bears responsibility for how the image is used. See example below. |
No.
That is wrong, the liability for the misuse of someone's likeness extends to the publisher. If the publisher does not have a release from the person in the image, they do not have the right to use that person's likeness and are liable. |
Again, the Photographer is the Publisher. DPC is only the place.
If DPC were a magazine, then all the content would be reviewed and there would be commercial cooperation. DPC is not. It is merely a place where people can display their own work.
If you own the photograph, it's your responsibility to place it appropriately and your responsibility to ensure that it is used in accordance with the model's wishes.
If you do not require the model's permission for one reason or another and they still complain, there isn't much they can do about it. See Tabloids. |
Releases are really only required in commercial settings.
This isn't
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 06:45:12 PM · #432 |
| talking about model releases is fairly off-topic guys. Try to stay on point or perhaps re-direct to a new thread? |
|
|
|
02/21/2008 12:19:37 AM · #433 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
Releases are really only required in commercial settings.
This isn't |
Not the point. Commercial or not, it doesn't change the fact that the responsibility for using the image appropriately lies with the person who took the photograph or the person who owns the photograph. DPC maintains that the photographs here are the property of the photographer, although for some situations, DPC reserves rights to use pics for promotion of the website if desired, this doesn't come into play unless the image is chosen for that.
DPC does allow the removal/hiding of challenge images as well on the request of the photographer with a valid reason.
If anyone's going to get sued, it's going to be the photographer for putting the picture up, not DPC for operating a site where people can post and view images.
Hope that shows the relevance to the topic on my end. |
|
|
|
02/21/2008 01:12:15 AM · #434 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
Releases dont even come into play. this is not a commercial venue (for the purposes of sales of the images)
A photographer can selfpromote his images without release as long as the model in question is not defamed by that action.
|
No? Then what is DPC Prints selling? Breath mints?
A model release is not really about defamation, it's about controlling the use of one's own likeness and the right to privacy. |
|
|
|
02/21/2008 01:24:40 AM · #435 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by nomad469:
Releases are really only required in commercial settings.
This isn't |
Not the point. Commercial or not, it doesn't change the fact that the responsibility for using the image appropriately lies with the person who took the photograph or the person who owns the photograph. DPC maintains that the photographs here are the property of the photographer, although for some situations, DPC reserves rights to use pics for promotion of the website if desired, this doesn't come into play unless the image is chosen for that.
DPC does allow the removal/hiding of challenge images as well on the request of the photographer with a valid reason.
If anyone's going to get sued, it's going to be the photographer for putting the picture up, not DPC for operating a site where people can post and view images.
Hope that shows the relevance to the topic on my end. |
Really? Read this. It seems the matter is anything but settled. |
|
|
|
02/21/2008 03:12:47 AM · #436 |
Originally posted by your linky:
Moreover, the court argued that by filtering search results and channeling users to certain profiles based on user preferences, the www.roommates.com site had provided an additional layer of "meta-information" that it was responsible for creating and maintaining. This extra layer of information rendered www.roommates.com a content provider, and destroyed its immunity under Section 230.
Congress enacted the immunity safe harbor contained in the CDA so as not to stifle Internet commerce by making interactive computer service providers immune from liability when it comes to the content of others. It is one thing to hold a service provider liable when it truly helps create and develop offending content that is subject to a legal complaint.
But where does one draw the line? Here, www.roommates.com does facilitate a process so that people looking for roommates can provide descriptions and preferences, and the content submitted can be discriminatory in nature.
|
It does this by using the 'meta information' as part of a search engine to facilitate discrimination. The search engine would need to specifically be aware of the content and nature of the information in order to do this.
The above mentioned case does not apply to what we have been talking about because DPC does not promote using a search engine that uses the content of comments. |
|
|
|
02/21/2008 08:55:17 AM · #437 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by your linky:
Moreover, the court argued that by filtering search results and channeling users to certain profiles based on user preferences, the www.roommates.com site had provided an additional layer of "meta-information" that it was responsible for creating and maintaining. This extra layer of information rendered www.roommates.com a content provider, and destroyed its immunity under Section 230.
Congress enacted the immunity safe harbor contained in the CDA so as not to stifle Internet commerce by making interactive computer service providers immune from liability when it comes to the content of others. It is one thing to hold a service provider liable when it truly helps create and develop offending content that is subject to a legal complaint.
But where does one draw the line? Here, www.roommates.com does facilitate a process so that people looking for roommates can provide descriptions and preferences, and the content submitted can be discriminatory in nature.
|
It does this by using the 'meta information' as part of a search engine to facilitate discrimination. The search engine would need to specifically be aware of the content and nature of the information in order to do this.
The above mentioned case does not apply to what we have been talking about because DPC does not promote using a search engine that uses the content of comments. |
That example of a search engine is not the exclusive means to establish a site's status as a "publisher". The article only shows that the legal standard for establishing liability over content is not exactly concrete. The section about the search engine is not part of the case, it's a question raised by the article's author
The standard, based on other cases, has been that a site is considered a "publisher" if it has "editorial control" over the content posted on the site. The fact that SC can and does edit, hide and create content demonstrates "editorial control" and thus makes DPC a "publisher".
In any event, DPC has a search feature that examines the content of posts, it even highlights the search terms in the results.
Message edited by author 2008-02-21 08:56:01. |
|
|
|
02/21/2008 09:49:59 AM · #438 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by nomad469:
Releases are really only required in commercial settings.
This isn't |
Not the point. Commercial or not, it doesn't change the fact that the responsibility for using the image appropriately lies with the person who took the photograph or the person who owns the photograph. DPC maintains that the photographs here are the property of the photographer, although for some situations, DPC reserves rights to use pics for promotion of the website if desired, this doesn't come into play unless the image is chosen for that.
DPC does allow the removal/hiding of challenge images as well on the request of the photographer with a valid reason.
If anyone's going to get sued, it's going to be the photographer for putting the picture up, not DPC for operating a site where people can post and view images.
Hope that shows the relevance to the topic on my end. |
That's simply not the way it works. The publisher gets sued, not the photographer. The publisher could then in turn try to sue the photographer, but the initial responsibility lies with the publisher.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2008 01:48:31 AM · #439 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
That example of a search engine is not the exclusive means to establish a site's status as a "publisher". The article only shows that the legal standard for establishing liability over content is not exactly concrete. The section about the search engine is not part of the case, it's a question raised by the article's author
The standard, based on other cases, has been that a site is considered a "publisher" if it has "editorial control" over the content posted on the site. The fact that SC can and does edit, hide and create content demonstrates "editorial control" and thus makes DPC a "publisher".
In any event, DPC has a search feature that examines the content of posts, it even highlights the search terms in the results. |
Funny, because what I read in that article indicated that they were immune until they built the search engine. This was based on specific laws for internet sites which have very large volumes of content which are specifically in a different class.
Anyhow, I'm content to leave DPC's legal standing in the hands of the SC. Just about anyone can sue just about anyone else for just about anything - or in some cases just about nothing - in the states. |
|
|
|
02/22/2008 06:54:35 AM · #440 |
Don't know if this has been proposed before, so here is my take on it (a.k.a. "accountability"):
1. Introduce a "Photographer considers this comment to be rude" checkbox
2. Add a link to "Rude Comments" from users' profile
Pros: Create a balance between photographers and critics, which is missing in the current setup (where rude comments are usually accessible from the photographer's area, and are attributed mostly to the photographer, and less so to the commentor). Automatic system.
Cons: People may make less comments, which is usually the best feedback one can hope for (including rude ones). Comments may become less funny?! Automatic system.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2008 09:32:06 AM · #441 |
Originally posted by mitalapo:
Don't know if this has been proposed before, so here is my take on it (a.k.a. "accountability"):
1. Introduce a "Photographer considers this comment to be rude" checkbox
2. Add a link to "Rude Comments" from users' profile
Pros: Create a balance between photographers and critics, which is missing in the current setup (where rude comments are usually accessible from the photographer's area, and are attributed mostly to the photographer, and less so to the commentor). Automatic system.
Cons: People may make less comments, which is usually the best feedback one can hope for (including rude ones). Comments may become less funny?! Automatic system. |
Great idea.
An awesome side effect would be a link for "top 10 rude commenters", that would be a great time waster while I read all the funny comments people have made and see how sensitive people are. |
|
|
|
05/09/2009 01:05:40 AM · #442 |
People can be very sensitive!!
Originally posted by swankFoto:
Originally posted by mitalapo:
Don't know if this has been proposed before, so here is my take on it (a.k.a. "accountability"):
1. Introduce a "Photographer considers this comment to be rude" checkbox
2. Add a link to "Rude Comments" from users' profile
Pros: Create a balance between photographers and critics, which is missing in the current setup (where rude comments are usually accessible from the photographer's area, and are attributed mostly to the photographer, and less so to the commentor). Automatic system.
Cons: People may make less comments, which is usually the best feedback one can hope for (including rude ones). Comments may become less funny?! Automatic system. |
Great idea.
An awesome side effect would be a link for "top 10 rude commenters", that would be a great time waster while I read all the funny comments people have made and see how sensitive people are. |
Message edited by author 2009-05-09 10:47:39. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/27/2024 05:12:31 PM EDT.
