Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Also, keep the discussions civil.
Login to Like
this post
Why are you watermarking these images? (For example, the RFD image is not yours but rather comes from the Library and Archive of Canada.) It would be more useful to attribute/link the image sources.
Don
9 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
51Studebaker
Not sure what your issue is
Of course the images are NOT MINE - I did not take them in 1940 or before
As for the watermark it is automatically put on from my image server and it would be a lot of trouble to individually remove it from certain images to please certain people who look for certain minor issues.
I had hoped these would be of interest and not a source of complaint.
Note that PMs are a good place to report complaints - try it, it works
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
"51Studebaker
Not sure what your issue is
Of course the images are NOT MINE - I did not take them in 1940 or before
As for the watermark it is automatically put on from my image server and it would be a lot of trouble to individually remove it from certain images to please certain people who look for certain minor issues.
I had hoped these would be of interest and not a source of complaint.
Note that PMs are a good place to report complaints - try it, it works"
You might want to google the pluses, minuses, legalities and meaning of automatically watermarking every image whether owned by you or others. I will leave it at that, ethics aside.
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
"51Studebaker
Not sure what your issue is
Of course the images are NOT MINE - I did not take them in 1940 or before
As for the watermark it is automatically put on from my image server and it would be a lot of trouble to individually remove it from certain images to please certain people who look for certain minor issues.
I had hoped these would be of interest and not a source of complaint.
Note that PMs are a good place to report complaints - try it, it works"
I’ll put your snarky reply aside in an effort to keep this civil; let’s see if we can resolve this so that philately and this community benefits.
No one said anything about you taking the picture(s) in 1940. Owning an archival picture image means that you purchased the original image and/or scanned the image from an original source. Watermarking an image implies that you own the image.
Taking content from a website, without attribution or permission, is wrong on several levels. At a minimum it is inconsiderate, worse case it is illegal (depending upon the T&Cs of the source). Additionally, professionalism dictates that the ‘taken’ content contain attributions. This helps other understand where the content came from; this has value on many levels. It helps the Mods and owner of a forum so they do not burn extra time verifying the ‘taken’ content is allowable. It helps users know if they too can reuse the content themselves.
When you did in this in one of your other threads I did not say anything but rather simply added the attribution for you in a post. Posting a single piece of content from another source is no big deal; but clearly your threads contain a large amount of content from other websites.
With regard to linking images from your server (as opposed to uploading them to the forum server) you are also creating issues with your current practices. After you joined the SCF forum for a week, you messaged the Mods and asked that we go back and edit/delete a large number of your posts since you had changed the path/file names on your server, breaking many posts you had made. I did not push back but rather just spent the time to fix all your broken posts.
But now all of your posts at SCF are now broken and look like this
This has occurred not only in new threads you started, but also in existing threads; so the task of fixing these becomes even more time consuming. Should I invest more time fixing these? Or should it be assumed that you will continue to break the paths/file names to the images you post? (Note that if is this is the case most Mods would simply lock your account.)
In my opinion, you need to reconsider how you are posting. Contributions are, of course, always welcome but they should be done in a way that is considerate.
Don
7 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Thank you for clarifying your thoughts
1. 'but clearly your threads contain a large amount of content from other websites.'
I have 20 posts on this site (easily verified) and only one the Japan Classics and a couple on the forgeries have images and they are MINE
SO this allegation is nothing more than a total fabrication
2. On SCF (quite frankly Stamporama is not the place to air other forum issues)
I had a problem with my site host who made changes and some image folders were lost
I sent 3 emails 2 by the forum mail and a direct to moderator email - NO ANSWERS
Instead of crying "VICTIM", allowing me access to edit my posts would have solved the problem in minutes.
Solution for the future - Start allowing Edits
3. As for the post in question
Perhaps the images I posted should not have been watermarked (as the image server automatically put them on) BUT anyone taking the time would have noticed that the images WERE attributed. The post heading clearly states "Canada Post Site Images"
Again - bringing issues from another forum has NO PLACE HERE. I see you have blocked me on the other forum - great way for a moderator to fix the problem - Thank You, now I need not concern myself with trying to fix any issues
BUT I for one want to discuss and learn about stamps and postal history - so.....
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Moderator hat on:
Time to end this discussion and the personal comments against fellow members. You can debate image attribution but leave the personal attacks out including other forum activity.
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
I really don't understand what just happened here to really piss someone off. What was wrong with the images and what should have been done instead. Myself and a couple friends are in the process of writing a book and we know that every source and every photo used has to be fully cited. What exactly, in terms anyone can understand, was done wrong here. That way I would not make the same mistake later. I'm not being a smart ass - I really don't understand unless he should have fully cited each photo telling where it was taken from. Was that the problem?
Login to Like
this post
Not following this either. What exactly was the infraction here? 'Watermarks" on photos?
Not all of us have a grasp on technical stuff. It'd be helpful if we knew..
Login to Like
this post
"Angore -Time to end this discussion and the personal comments against fellow members. You can debate image attribution but leave the personal attacks out including other forum activity."
Having seen the posts including the ones removed, I must agree fully with Angore.
I was/am a moderator for many years and this forum as with any other is NOT the place to "wash your dirty laundry" especially when you are a moderator of another stamp forum.
What happens on your forum stays on your forum.
Referring to a member in derogatory terms and threatening blocking them instead of resolving a simple issue has no place anywhere.
Cudos to the moderator here who removed the offensive post.
Members reading the Rules of Conduct in both forums would be beneficial, especially those who thought the removed post from the SCF member deserved a LIKE.
BTW loved the initial images of the old post office (which was really the more important part) - brought back memories, the milkman coming by with his horse who knew the route better than him, the iceman bringing blocks of ice from the ice plant and 1d chocolate bars - somehow getting through life without a digital phone.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
For the couple of folks (Harvey and Snick) who asked about watermarks. They are usually text or a logo embeddeded as a separate layer in an image to prevent the unauthorized use of the image. You see lots of them on the net especially when someone is actually selling the images. They are quite easy to make using various software.
Here is an example part of my 3.5 L
- 
Login to Like
this post
I know what it means to watermark images now - I've seen it before. But I can't find any on the original images. On one there looks like a fingerprint but I don't see it on the others. And I still don't really understand the huge fuss. The guy showed a few images on line. That can be a problem but he appeared to source them to the Canada Post site. If someone wants to share an interesting image, I really don't understand the fuss. I am writing a book that will contain several photos that I need to give credit for their source, so I know the procedure - it seemed to be followed here. I'm sorry if I'm insulting someone, and if you want to criticize me please do so, but this seems like an over reaction.
Login to Like
this post
The images in the original post did have a watermark, but as a result of the fuss images were reposted without them which is why you do not see them. As for the reaction ... nothing surprises me on the internet anymore ...
& 
Login to Like
this post
"...but this seems like an over reaction"
...it was.
"...nothing surprises me on the internet anymore."
...me either.
Login to Like
this post
I'm not directing these comments to anyone in particular. Just pointing out the opportunity here to help members better understand some of the intellectual property rights issues we all encounter from time to time.
As an author and creator of original prints, I'm probably more sensitive than most when it comes to intellectual property rights. Most authors are working with publishers who insist on their authors getting permission to use the work of others and then attribute that work appropriately. On the internet, too many people are either lazy or think if it's online, it must be public domain. I get tired of people using my work without permission or even attribution. Many are just clueless when it comes to using the work of others and that's understandable. Sometimes, it can be difficult to determine the status of works online and sometimes there are gray areas. I appreciate authors and others who take the time to contact me for permission to use of my work.
In my experience, lack of knowledge or misunderstandings are commonplace and are usually easily resolved. It is those few who claim to know the law and insist they have the right to use the work of others without permission because the work is online. The worst offenders are those who not only use the work of others, but knowingly and openly claim it as their own work. It doesn't happen often fortunately.
This thread seems to have been a simple case of not realizing the significance of the watermarks or not noticing they were even there. Not a big deal in this case, but worthwhile if it helps a few members better understand the need to know what is and what is not a protected work and how to deal with it in either case. Getting permission or taking the time to attribute the work of others and sources can be a pain, but it's the appropriate thing to do. It's also beneficial for researchers who may want to follow up on the origins of an image or piece of information via the attribution information. Many of us here are researchers. Attribution can save others a lot of time in their own research.
Tom
10 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
As for re-posting images from the Internet, it is impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. Owners of intellectual property need to protect themselves as well since it is so pervasive most think it is normal giving the "share" mentality.
Even magazines that make copyright notices do not give attribution to images and even if this forum required everyone to state copyright ownership it would not solve anything. Unfortunatey it is the nature of the beast whether we like it or not.
I had posted images I had taken at a stamp show to a forum and they ended up getting printed in two stamp magazines and I do not subscribe to many publications. One gave the forum credit by citing the forum and they other did not. I had put a faint watermark in the corner and they did not remove it but not sure they noticed it.
Login to Like
this post
"Even magazines that make copyright notices do not give attribution to images and even if this forum required everyone to state copyright ownership it would not solve anything."
This is not about solving anything it is about doing things ethically, even if others fail to do so.
Magazines may not have to give attribution as it depends on the license agreement or sale agreement regarding the picture in question If they buy the picture then they own it and there may be no need to attribute.
I share the concern of pictures being posted to StampoRama which do not have a relatively permanent link or source (such as being uploaded to StampoRama). Pictures often tell a big part of a post, and without them, the information provided will be lacking.
Login to Like
this post
"If they buy the picture then they own it and there may be no need to attribute."
They may not necessarily "own" the picture. They could have purchased the right to use the picture X number of times, or for a limited time period after which their rights to use the picture expire. it all depends on the terms of the "sale".
Take for example an article I wrote for the "Texas Philatelist" magazine. My submittal of the article gave the Texas Philatelic Association (TPA) six months exclusive rights to use the article and accompanying pictures in its publications. After that the rights reverted back to me. However, if I were to merely make a copy of the article from the magazine and post it here, for example, I would have to credit the TPA as the source of the material.
As one can see from my example, use of intellectual property can be confusing. It is always best to make sure of what one is using to avoid receipt of a "cease and desist" letter from a law firm.
Login to Like
this post
After reading every response in this thread and finally understanding what was going on I have come to the conclusion that I am not intelligent enough to understand what is intellectual property and how it can or cannot be used!!!
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
The dictionary definition of "intellectual property" is a work or invention that is the result of creativity, such as a manuscript or a design, to which one has rights and for which one may apply for a patent, copyright, trademark, etc.
Login to Like
this post
"... to understand what is intellectual property and how it can or cannot be used ..."
Let's try & develop a simple set of rules.
1) If you created it for yourself, you'd know it, and you'd own it.
1a) No, smart guy, creating a copy is not creating.
2) If you created it for someone else, you'd know it, and you'd know the terms under which it was created ... op cit contract.
3) If you bought it, or licensed the use of it, you'd know it ... op cit contract.
4) If you did not create it, and you are re-purposing it, you'd know that, too ... see if what you are doing falls under / complies with The Fair Use Doctrine. (I think that, in the vast majority of cases, that is easily done ... but that's me.)
4a) Attribution soothes the savage beast, but is no defense against something obviously wrong.
When downloading an image off of the internet, I often make a point of naming the source in the file name.
Sometimes this gets cumbersome, as when I'm grabbing a photograph that appeared in a news article that the publisher's caption attributed to, say, Getty Images, the Library of Congress, or some photographer that I never heard of ... the file names can get v-e-r-y l-o-n-g.
And, sometimes, this gets futile, as when SOR replaces my carefully constructed file name with a sequence number; I understand 'why', but it defeats my efforts to do the right thing.
Naming the source in the text accompanying the image does my duty (sort of) but, of course, once the image is up for grabs, I've no say in whether/not the next guy grabs that image with/out my attribution.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Is my avatar subject to copyright? If it is, should I remove it and take a picture of an emu and use that?
Login to Like
this post
'
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ ... an interesting elucidation of, shall we call them, The Four Questions:
"The four factors judges consider are:
- the purpose and character of your use
- the nature of the copyrighted work
- the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market."
In the case of a postage stamp used as an avatar, I think that to gain social media street cred is to personally profit (#1) and, obviously, you've taken the work in its entirety (#3).
However, although public postal services have transitioned to quasi-public corporations, I would still think of postage stamps as commonly-held cultural property (#2) (so you also own it), and the consequences your use of the image as an avatar in this forum as breathtakingly immaterial & inconsequential.
BTW, I see that the Bank of England (a private party) has begun adding a copyright notice to that currency.
"Is my avatar subject to copyright? If it is, should I remove it and take a picture of an emu and use that?"
My unqualified answers to your three questions are 1) trending 'yes', 2) no need to remove it, and 3) please do, if there are emus near you.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
Login to Like
this post
The following discussion was removed from a thread as it has spawned a discussion on its own. Please remain on-topic to maintain continuity of the discussions.
Also, keep the discussions civil.
Login to Like
this post
re: Using Copyrighted Material Found Online
Why are you watermarking these images? (For example, the RFD image is not yours but rather comes from the Library and Archive of Canada.) It would be more useful to attribute/link the image sources.
Don
9 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Using Copyrighted Material Found Online
51Studebaker
Not sure what your issue is
Of course the images are NOT MINE - I did not take them in 1940 or before
As for the watermark it is automatically put on from my image server and it would be a lot of trouble to individually remove it from certain images to please certain people who look for certain minor issues.
I had hoped these would be of interest and not a source of complaint.
Note that PMs are a good place to report complaints - try it, it works
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Using Copyrighted Material Found Online
"51Studebaker
Not sure what your issue is
Of course the images are NOT MINE - I did not take them in 1940 or before
As for the watermark it is automatically put on from my image server and it would be a lot of trouble to individually remove it from certain images to please certain people who look for certain minor issues.
I had hoped these would be of interest and not a source of complaint.
Note that PMs are a good place to report complaints - try it, it works"
You might want to google the pluses, minuses, legalities and meaning of automatically watermarking every image whether owned by you or others. I will leave it at that, ethics aside.
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Using Copyrighted Material Found Online
"51Studebaker
Not sure what your issue is
Of course the images are NOT MINE - I did not take them in 1940 or before
As for the watermark it is automatically put on from my image server and it would be a lot of trouble to individually remove it from certain images to please certain people who look for certain minor issues.
I had hoped these would be of interest and not a source of complaint.
Note that PMs are a good place to report complaints - try it, it works"
I’ll put your snarky reply aside in an effort to keep this civil; let’s see if we can resolve this so that philately and this community benefits.
No one said anything about you taking the picture(s) in 1940. Owning an archival picture image means that you purchased the original image and/or scanned the image from an original source. Watermarking an image implies that you own the image.
Taking content from a website, without attribution or permission, is wrong on several levels. At a minimum it is inconsiderate, worse case it is illegal (depending upon the T&Cs of the source). Additionally, professionalism dictates that the ‘taken’ content contain attributions. This helps other understand where the content came from; this has value on many levels. It helps the Mods and owner of a forum so they do not burn extra time verifying the ‘taken’ content is allowable. It helps users know if they too can reuse the content themselves.
When you did in this in one of your other threads I did not say anything but rather simply added the attribution for you in a post. Posting a single piece of content from another source is no big deal; but clearly your threads contain a large amount of content from other websites.
With regard to linking images from your server (as opposed to uploading them to the forum server) you are also creating issues with your current practices. After you joined the SCF forum for a week, you messaged the Mods and asked that we go back and edit/delete a large number of your posts since you had changed the path/file names on your server, breaking many posts you had made. I did not push back but rather just spent the time to fix all your broken posts.
But now all of your posts at SCF are now broken and look like this
This has occurred not only in new threads you started, but also in existing threads; so the task of fixing these becomes even more time consuming. Should I invest more time fixing these? Or should it be assumed that you will continue to break the paths/file names to the images you post? (Note that if is this is the case most Mods would simply lock your account.)
In my opinion, you need to reconsider how you are posting. Contributions are, of course, always welcome but they should be done in a way that is considerate.
Don
7 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Using Copyrighted Material Found Online
Thank you for clarifying your thoughts
1. 'but clearly your threads contain a large amount of content from other websites.'
I have 20 posts on this site (easily verified) and only one the Japan Classics and a couple on the forgeries have images and they are MINE
SO this allegation is nothing more than a total fabrication
2. On SCF (quite frankly Stamporama is not the place to air other forum issues)
I had a problem with my site host who made changes and some image folders were lost
I sent 3 emails 2 by the forum mail and a direct to moderator email - NO ANSWERS
Instead of crying "VICTIM", allowing me access to edit my posts would have solved the problem in minutes.
Solution for the future - Start allowing Edits
3. As for the post in question
Perhaps the images I posted should not have been watermarked (as the image server automatically put them on) BUT anyone taking the time would have noticed that the images WERE attributed. The post heading clearly states "Canada Post Site Images"
Again - bringing issues from another forum has NO PLACE HERE. I see you have blocked me on the other forum - great way for a moderator to fix the problem - Thank You, now I need not concern myself with trying to fix any issues
BUT I for one want to discuss and learn about stamps and postal history - so.....
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Using Copyrighted Material Found Online
Moderator hat on:
Time to end this discussion and the personal comments against fellow members. You can debate image attribution but leave the personal attacks out including other forum activity.
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
04:39:59pm
re: Using Copyrighted Material Found Online
I really don't understand what just happened here to really piss someone off. What was wrong with the images and what should have been done instead. Myself and a couple friends are in the process of writing a book and we know that every source and every photo used has to be fully cited. What exactly, in terms anyone can understand, was done wrong here. That way I would not make the same mistake later. I'm not being a smart ass - I really don't understand unless he should have fully cited each photo telling where it was taken from. Was that the problem?
Login to Like
this post
re: Using Copyrighted Material Found Online
Not following this either. What exactly was the infraction here? 'Watermarks" on photos?
Not all of us have a grasp on technical stuff. It'd be helpful if we knew..
Login to Like
this post
12:48:37pm
re: Using Copyrighted Material Found Online
"Angore -Time to end this discussion and the personal comments against fellow members. You can debate image attribution but leave the personal attacks out including other forum activity."
Having seen the posts including the ones removed, I must agree fully with Angore.
I was/am a moderator for many years and this forum as with any other is NOT the place to "wash your dirty laundry" especially when you are a moderator of another stamp forum.
What happens on your forum stays on your forum.
Referring to a member in derogatory terms and threatening blocking them instead of resolving a simple issue has no place anywhere.
Cudos to the moderator here who removed the offensive post.
Members reading the Rules of Conduct in both forums would be beneficial, especially those who thought the removed post from the SCF member deserved a LIKE.
BTW loved the initial images of the old post office (which was really the more important part) - brought back memories, the milkman coming by with his horse who knew the route better than him, the iceman bringing blocks of ice from the ice plant and 1d chocolate bars - somehow getting through life without a digital phone.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
01:36:32pm
re: Using Copyrighted Material Found Online
For the couple of folks (Harvey and Snick) who asked about watermarks. They are usually text or a logo embeddeded as a separate layer in an image to prevent the unauthorized use of the image. You see lots of them on the net especially when someone is actually selling the images. They are quite easy to make using various software.
Here is an example part of my 3.5 L
-
Login to Like
this post
03:25:15pm
re: Using Copyrighted Material Found Online
I know what it means to watermark images now - I've seen it before. But I can't find any on the original images. On one there looks like a fingerprint but I don't see it on the others. And I still don't really understand the huge fuss. The guy showed a few images on line. That can be a problem but he appeared to source them to the Canada Post site. If someone wants to share an interesting image, I really don't understand the fuss. I am writing a book that will contain several photos that I need to give credit for their source, so I know the procedure - it seemed to be followed here. I'm sorry if I'm insulting someone, and if you want to criticize me please do so, but this seems like an over reaction.
Login to Like
this post
05:18:10pm
re: Using Copyrighted Material Found Online
The images in the original post did have a watermark, but as a result of the fuss images were reposted without them which is why you do not see them. As for the reaction ... nothing surprises me on the internet anymore ... &
Login to Like
this post
re: Using Copyrighted Material Found Online
"...but this seems like an over reaction"
...it was.
"...nothing surprises me on the internet anymore."
...me either.
Login to Like
this post
re: Using Copyrighted Material Found Online
I'm not directing these comments to anyone in particular. Just pointing out the opportunity here to help members better understand some of the intellectual property rights issues we all encounter from time to time.
As an author and creator of original prints, I'm probably more sensitive than most when it comes to intellectual property rights. Most authors are working with publishers who insist on their authors getting permission to use the work of others and then attribute that work appropriately. On the internet, too many people are either lazy or think if it's online, it must be public domain. I get tired of people using my work without permission or even attribution. Many are just clueless when it comes to using the work of others and that's understandable. Sometimes, it can be difficult to determine the status of works online and sometimes there are gray areas. I appreciate authors and others who take the time to contact me for permission to use of my work.
In my experience, lack of knowledge or misunderstandings are commonplace and are usually easily resolved. It is those few who claim to know the law and insist they have the right to use the work of others without permission because the work is online. The worst offenders are those who not only use the work of others, but knowingly and openly claim it as their own work. It doesn't happen often fortunately.
This thread seems to have been a simple case of not realizing the significance of the watermarks or not noticing they were even there. Not a big deal in this case, but worthwhile if it helps a few members better understand the need to know what is and what is not a protected work and how to deal with it in either case. Getting permission or taking the time to attribute the work of others and sources can be a pain, but it's the appropriate thing to do. It's also beneficial for researchers who may want to follow up on the origins of an image or piece of information via the attribution information. Many of us here are researchers. Attribution can save others a lot of time in their own research.
Tom
10 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Using Copyrighted Material Found Online
As for re-posting images from the Internet, it is impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. Owners of intellectual property need to protect themselves as well since it is so pervasive most think it is normal giving the "share" mentality.
Even magazines that make copyright notices do not give attribution to images and even if this forum required everyone to state copyright ownership it would not solve anything. Unfortunatey it is the nature of the beast whether we like it or not.
I had posted images I had taken at a stamp show to a forum and they ended up getting printed in two stamp magazines and I do not subscribe to many publications. One gave the forum credit by citing the forum and they other did not. I had put a faint watermark in the corner and they did not remove it but not sure they noticed it.
Login to Like
this post
re: Using Copyrighted Material Found Online
"Even magazines that make copyright notices do not give attribution to images and even if this forum required everyone to state copyright ownership it would not solve anything."
This is not about solving anything it is about doing things ethically, even if others fail to do so.
Magazines may not have to give attribution as it depends on the license agreement or sale agreement regarding the picture in question If they buy the picture then they own it and there may be no need to attribute.
I share the concern of pictures being posted to StampoRama which do not have a relatively permanent link or source (such as being uploaded to StampoRama). Pictures often tell a big part of a post, and without them, the information provided will be lacking.
Login to Like
this post
re: Using Copyrighted Material Found Online
"If they buy the picture then they own it and there may be no need to attribute."
They may not necessarily "own" the picture. They could have purchased the right to use the picture X number of times, or for a limited time period after which their rights to use the picture expire. it all depends on the terms of the "sale".
Take for example an article I wrote for the "Texas Philatelist" magazine. My submittal of the article gave the Texas Philatelic Association (TPA) six months exclusive rights to use the article and accompanying pictures in its publications. After that the rights reverted back to me. However, if I were to merely make a copy of the article from the magazine and post it here, for example, I would have to credit the TPA as the source of the material.
As one can see from my example, use of intellectual property can be confusing. It is always best to make sure of what one is using to avoid receipt of a "cease and desist" letter from a law firm.
Login to Like
this post
re: Using Copyrighted Material Found Online
After reading every response in this thread and finally understanding what was going on I have come to the conclusion that I am not intelligent enough to understand what is intellectual property and how it can or cannot be used!!!
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Using Copyrighted Material Found Online
The dictionary definition of "intellectual property" is a work or invention that is the result of creativity, such as a manuscript or a design, to which one has rights and for which one may apply for a patent, copyright, trademark, etc.
Login to Like
this post
re: Using Copyrighted Material Found Online
"... to understand what is intellectual property and how it can or cannot be used ..."
Let's try & develop a simple set of rules.
1) If you created it for yourself, you'd know it, and you'd own it.
1a) No, smart guy, creating a copy is not creating.
2) If you created it for someone else, you'd know it, and you'd know the terms under which it was created ... op cit contract.
3) If you bought it, or licensed the use of it, you'd know it ... op cit contract.
4) If you did not create it, and you are re-purposing it, you'd know that, too ... see if what you are doing falls under / complies with The Fair Use Doctrine. (I think that, in the vast majority of cases, that is easily done ... but that's me.)
4a) Attribution soothes the savage beast, but is no defense against something obviously wrong.
When downloading an image off of the internet, I often make a point of naming the source in the file name.
Sometimes this gets cumbersome, as when I'm grabbing a photograph that appeared in a news article that the publisher's caption attributed to, say, Getty Images, the Library of Congress, or some photographer that I never heard of ... the file names can get v-e-r-y l-o-n-g.
And, sometimes, this gets futile, as when SOR replaces my carefully constructed file name with a sequence number; I understand 'why', but it defeats my efforts to do the right thing.
Naming the source in the text accompanying the image does my duty (sort of) but, of course, once the image is up for grabs, I've no say in whether/not the next guy grabs that image with/out my attribution.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
04:17:53am
re: Using Copyrighted Material Found Online
Is my avatar subject to copyright? If it is, should I remove it and take a picture of an emu and use that?
Login to Like
this post
re: Using Copyrighted Material Found Online
'
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ ... an interesting elucidation of, shall we call them, The Four Questions:
"The four factors judges consider are:
- the purpose and character of your use
- the nature of the copyrighted work
- the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market."
In the case of a postage stamp used as an avatar, I think that to gain social media street cred is to personally profit (#1) and, obviously, you've taken the work in its entirety (#3).
However, although public postal services have transitioned to quasi-public corporations, I would still think of postage stamps as commonly-held cultural property (#2) (so you also own it), and the consequences your use of the image as an avatar in this forum as breathtakingly immaterial & inconsequential.
BTW, I see that the Bank of England (a private party) has begun adding a copyright notice to that currency.
"Is my avatar subject to copyright? If it is, should I remove it and take a picture of an emu and use that?"
My unqualified answers to your three questions are 1) trending 'yes', 2) no need to remove it, and 3) please do, if there are emus near you.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
Login to Like
this post