Copyright and linking threads - what's the story?

[informer]

What is this all about not being able to link webpages or images to other forums?

Um, excuse me but isn't this the internet? Copying images and passing them as yours is not morally correct and is of course wrong, but I don't see the problem in linking pictures let alone a thread. Someone (not a moderator) throw me a bone here.

[Nnnnsic]

Do you think that the opinions of the moderators don't matter in something as serious as asking for permission for someone elses images?

[stubbsy]

What is this all about not being able to link webpages or images to other forums?

Um, excuse me but isn't this the internet? Copying images and passing them as yours is not morally correct and is of course wrong, but I don't see the problem in linking pictures let alone a thread. Someone (not a moderator) throw me a bone here.

I'm not a moderator. Here's a neat example. The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America I believe) have made a lot of lawyers rich by chasing people who post and link to their images on the internet. They've even won a case or three! Strangely they seem to believe that just because the internet is widely accessible doesn't mean copyright laws don't apply.

[Geoff]

What is this all about not being able to link webpages or images to other forums?

Um, excuse me but isn't this the internet? Copying images and passing them as yours is not morally correct and is of course wrong, but I don't see the problem in linking pictures let alone a thread. Someone (not a moderator) throw me a bone here.

Here's a bone, oh woops..I'm a moderator. Why can't I have my two cents worth here? You certainly have had your $2 worth and you're beginning to frustrate me.

[informer]

I'm not a moderator. Here's a neat example. The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America I believe) have made a lot of lawyers rich by chasing people who post and link to their images on the internet. They've even won a case or three! Strangely they seem to believe that just because the internet is widely accessible doesn't mean copyright laws don't apply.

You mean like the RIAA or something like that, where they try to source anyone using MP3s illegally and fine people like $1000 per song?

Every forum links each other in one way or another.

That's the internet I'm afraid.

[stubbsy]

I'm not a moderator. Here's a neat example. The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America I believe) have made a lot of lawyers rich by chasing people who post and link to their images on the internet. They've even won a case or three! Strangely they seem to believe that just because the internet is widely accessible doesn't mean copyright laws don't apply.

You mean like the RIAA or something like that, where they try to source anyone using MP3s illegally and fine people like $1000 per song?

Every forum links each other in one way or another.

That's the internet I'm afraid.

Well no - you wanted an image example. RIAA and mp3 are about music aren't they AFAIK. And the MPAA have SUCCESSFULLY prosecuted people for DIRECTLY linking to a copy of their copyright image work.

Edit: And to state it really clearly - ascribing the commission of a breach of the laws of a country to the fact the internet was used to commit such act probably doesn't make for a terribly strong case in the eyes of the judiciary

[Nnnnsic]

Forums can link each other, but taking the rights to something without said author's permission no matter which way you try to explain it is still illegal.

[leek]

Actually, if the author/creator posted the pic (or anything else) on the internet, it does not breach copyright for someone else to provide a link to that same image...

However, if the image is copied and posted again, altered in any way, posted with misleading information, or used in an adverse manner, then that is most probably illegal...

That said:
Informer... please desist in your mischievous behaviour... your antics are distracting at best... annoying at worst... Learn to get along - or go somewhere else...

[Nnnnsic]

Learn to get along - or go somewhere else...

He doesn't have much of a choice now.

[leek]

Learn to get along - or go somewhere else...

He doesn't have much of a choice now.

AH!!! OK...

[kipper]

Informer, what did you do.

Did you re-use the image without the authors permission eg. embed the image in another forum or save it to your own hosting and post in another forum.

Or did you just link to a thread that contained the image?


The top most is a bit grey, and most times people won't really care aslong as it's published who the original author is and aslong as the publicity will be positive. However what you've done isn't along those lines and as a result, you're probably going to bear the brunt of a force that you didn't want to reckon with. While I agree with some of the points that you've made, and I agree with the points that the moderators have made, the way you've gone about it is way out of line.

[stubbsy]

Informer, what did you do.

Did you re-use the image without the authors permission eg. embed the image in another forum or save it to your own hosting and post in another forum.

Or did you just link to a thread that contained the image?


The top most is a bit grey, and most times people won't really care aslong as it's published who the original author is and aslong as the publicity will be positive. However what you've done isn't along those lines and as a result, you're probably going to bear the brunt of a force that you didn't want to reckon with. While I agree with some of the points that you've made, and I agree with the points that the moderators have made, the way you've gone about it is way out of line.

Darryl See the current potw thread for full details. He took deb's potw image, posted it on another forum and asked people to critique it. When questioned about use/abuse of deb's IP he claimed no problemo as nowhere on the image did it say copyright by Deb.

[gstark]

And, FWIW, the direct posting of links to one image, without permission of the copyrightholder, would probably be a breach of copyright.

That, precisely, is what Informer initially said he did.

When I queried him on this for specifics, he changed his story to say that he only linked to the forum. Guven that the contents of this forum - and every other site on the internet - is also subject to copyright, that then means that he should have asked me for permission to link.

Normally, it doesn't matter about linking from one site to another, but his posts indicated that there may have been derogatory comments or content within the scope of where he linked, and thus I wished to view his posts and determine exactly what, if any, damage he had perpetrated.

I therefore asked him, by PM, no less than three times for this information. He chose to not provide that information, and thus I had no choice but to ban him from here.

I suspect that we are well rid of him.

[Aussie Dave]

I suspect that we are well rid of him.

It's disappointing to think that it had to come to this.....

Gary, just wondering what is stopping Informer from re-entering under a different name ??

For a minute there, I was having flashbacks of dpreview

[kipper]

Gstark, so then going by your interpretation then, Google is breaching copyright laws?

I mean they might link to one of my images.


And the can is open.

[embi]

Do we now where he posted the image?? Which forum?

[kipper]

I'm not condoning what he did btw, I just think the whole copyright thing is very vague.

Personally I think taking of an image and reposting it into another forum is very wrong.

Posting a link to another forum, isn't against copyright laws - imho.

[redline]

i have to agree with the others, your've got no right reposting other ppl work with proper cause and permission. if your weren't happy with the potw image i suggest you get over it. don't go around backstabbing ppl because your don't think its potw of any good "quality".

[phillipb]

Personally I rather go with what is morally right rather then legally right, there are some pretty dumb laws around.
Threre's been lots of times when I have saved a member's photo on my computer, made some changes in photoshop, uploaded it to photobucket and re-posted it in the same thread for the sake of pointing out possible improvements to the owner. Technically this is unlawful but morally I am quite comfortable with this.
On the other hand, I would never dream of doing this with someone's work if he/she wasn't part of this forum.

[big pix]

Personally I rather go with what is morally right rather then legally right, there are some pretty dumb laws around.
Threre's been lots of times when I have saved a member's photo on my computer, made some changes in photoshop, uploaded it to photobucket and re-posted it in the same thread for the sake of pointing out possible improvements to the owner. Technically this is unlawful but morally I am quite comfortable with this.
On the other hand, I would never dream of doing this with someone's work if he/she wasn't part of this forum.

...... but do you ask permissision........it would be the correct thing to do and morally right thing to do, as I am also guilty of this same practise, but I will be asking permission in the future...........or I will be not doing it at all, as I would not like to upset anyones ego......so let go out and take more photos.........

[kipper]

But do you class posting a link to a thread as reposting?

I think that's what I was getting at.

[phillipb]

Personally I rather go with what is morally right rather then legally right, there are some pretty dumb laws around.
Threre's been lots of times when I have saved a member's photo on my computer, made some changes in photoshop, uploaded it to photobucket and re-posted it in the same thread for the sake of pointing out possible improvements to the owner. Technically this is unlawful but morally I am quite comfortable with this.
On the other hand, I would never dream of doing this with someone's work if he/she wasn't part of this forum.

...... but do you ask permissision........it would be the correct thing to do and morally right thing to do, as I am also guilty of this same practise, but I will be asking permission in the future...........or I will be not doing it at all, as I would not like to upset anyones ego......so let go out and take more photos.........

Yes, I agree with you, from now on I will be asking permission first.

[Nnnnsic]

I don't think that posting a link to a thread really requires permission... we all do it quite often.

However, I'm not sure if I believe that all he did was post the link because of two things.

1. He said this:

I posted this on another photo forum and I don't think it would be fair to hear what they had to say simply because the photo is forum-related (maybe that other guy was right, something about the inner circle).

He didn't say he linked it, but rather posted it.

And,

2. He refused to tell us what board he posted it on.

I'm inclined to believe he posted the image, not a link to it.

[kipper]

Leigh it might be the case that he did, however he did say "this" and that could mean anything. It could mean the image, the thread, the website url, who knows. "This" is pretty open for interpretation.

Secondly, he did create this thread "Copyright and linking threads - what's the story?" which to me implies he only linked the POTW thread to another site. Then again he could be just trying to cover his own ass, who knows.

[thaddeus]

And, FWIW, the direct posting of links to one image, without permission of the copyrightholder, would probably be a breach of copyright.

Why do you say that? The poster of a link does not reproduce the work.

[gstark]

I suspect that we are well rid of him.

It's disappointing to think that it had to come to this.....

Let me assure you that it hurts nobody more than it does me.

Gary, just wondering what is stopping Informer from re-entering under a different name ??

Quite a bit, actually. I've banned his email address, and I've banned each of the IP addresses that he's used to post from.

In a day or so I'll be looking to see if anyone else has been using those IP addresses, and I will deal with any new users that I find in an appropriate manner.

It's not rck solid, but it's not too bad.

[gstark]

I'm not condoning what he did btw, I just think the whole copyright thing is very vague.

Personally I think taking of an image and reposting it into another forum is very wrong.

Posting a link to another forum, isn't against copyright laws - imho.

If he is also posting derogatory comments, there may be other issues that come into play. This would rarely be an issue, but Informer appears to have made a choice that, I believe, warrants further investigation.

Clearly he fears that further investigation; otherwise he would have freely given me the URLs he posted to.

[Aussie Dave]

thanks for the reply Gary.

I, too, stand by you in your decision to ban Informer, which I know you would not have done so on a whim. Why people persist in trying to make everyone's life difficult is beyond me. Thank you for taking prompt and appropriate action.

I'm sure that everyone else here that respects this forum thanks you also....

[gstark]

And, FWIW, the direct posting of links to one image, without permission of the copyrightholder, would probably be a breach of copyright.

Why do you say that? The poster of a link does not reproduce the work.

If the link reproduces the work (such as using the IMG tags here) then the work will be published every time that link is rendered.

I'm not saying that the copyright laws are workable; clearly, in this day and age, they're a millenium behind the technology. But the reality is that every web page published is inherently subject to copyright, and that copyright needs to always be respected.

More importantly, in this instance there seems to be more than just the linking that has occurred: what comments were made in conjunction with the linking? Were those comments fair and reasonable? Were they made from an informed point of view?

What damage might be caused through his uttering of those comments?

That last point is important, and it's why I asked him, three times, for details of where he linked the images.

And three times, he failed to provide me with those links.

He either didn't make the posting he claimed to make - which makes him guilty of extremely dispruptive behaviour here, or he did, and he is fearful of the consequences of his actions.

I certainly can't think of any other reason to fail to provide me with details of those links.

[Sheetshooter]

Gary,

I do not have a moment's doubt that you did the right thing - albeit slower than I would have. But there are two points that I think should be considered by all:

1. 'Informer' now has no access to post to these forums and with that he has no course of redress. But he still can read what is said. I think that it is courting temptation to keep discussing this individual who perpetrated some rather silly things and possibly inciting in him the desire to get even. He has been banished, he can no longer affect the community here, let US get over it too!

2. The entire issue of cross-posting of links and photographs bring home the relevance of Copyright and Intellectual property - stated or implied. As photographers we look to Copyright as the source and security of our income. To the mind unqualified in the legal complexities of the Copyright Act there are times we might feel that the law is an ass and get lax in both our observance and our protection of the inherent Rights in a work. But in so doing we are eroding our very own protective armour. It is an ill wind that blows no good and the course of this incident should provide a graphic example of how tenuous the security of our work is in the current technology.

We have benefitted and now I think it is high time that we move on as so many prompted Informer to move on.

Cheers,

[thaddeus]

And, FWIW, the direct posting of links to one image, without permission of the copyrightholder, would probably be a breach of copyright.

Why do you say that? The poster of a link does not reproduce the work.

If the link reproduces the work (such as using the IMG tags here) then the work will be published every time that link is rendered.

Yes the work will be published, but not by the poster of the link. They are merely citing the work.

I take no issue with your comments about informer - I really don't care. What I do care about is trying to help rectify misconceptions about the law, and I think your original statement above was a misconception.

[Greg B]

Gary - well done as always, your actions fully supported.

Sheetshooter - well said.

In the spirit of sheet's comments, I am boldly going to lock this thread.

Move on people, nothing to see here.

[gstark]

Ahhh .... the benefits of being the Site Admin.

I'm going to reopen this thread just to post a couple of clarifying comments that I feel are necessary to bring this unsavory matter to closure.

Gary,

I do not have a moment's doubt that you did the right thing - albeit slower than I would have.

I was also slower than I would have liked, but of necessity I took some time because I was inviting Informer to give me details relating to the links he claims to have posted to. I felt that was the only fair approach I could take.

It was only when he repeatedly refused those invitations that I banned him.

1. 'Informer' now has no access to post to these forums and with that he has no course of redress. But he still can read what is said.

I don't believe this to be the case. I have also banned his IP address, and will be banning several other related ones (that he has used in the past) later today.

That said, I agree that we should not persist in discussing him. We should move one.

2. The entire issue of cross-posting of links and photographs bring home the relevance of Copyright and Intellectual property - stated or implied.

Your points here are very important, and very well made. Copyright was one of the aspects I considered when banning him, but there was also the potential issues of slander and libel.

I have no knowledge of what he said in those other forums, and that is why I felt it important for him to provide me with those links: what did he actually say in those forums? Given his complete misunderstanding of the PotW here, what other misinformation might he have been spouting forth?

While I'm not overly concerned about slander or libel, I am concernded that he may have misrepresented what and who we are and what we do here.

The bottom line is that he refused, not once, not twice, but three times to give me the links I requested. He failed to provide those links, and was banned.


I have no way of knowing what he said, and that's how it will remain. I'll certainly get over that.

Yes the work will be published, but not by the poster of the link. They are merely citing the work.

My understanding is that the work will be "published" every time a page is rendered and that image (or content) is included within that rendering. That is certainly the attitude I take here, and it's why I've on occasion asked people to reduce an image (say, from a newspaper) bak to a link to the story in the paper in question.

I think it doesn't hurt to take a slightly conservative approach here.

Unfortunately, we have no real knowledge of what happenned in this case - he refused to tell us. Make of that what you will.


This thread will remain locked.