Image Theft? Did this guy steel your image? Wouter, potterma, raythebigfoot, others?

[bluemist]

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has granted thousands of patents on human genes – in fact, about 20 percent of our genes are patented. A gene patent holder has the right to prevent anyone from studying, testing or even looking at a gene. As a result, scientific research and genetic testing has been delayed, limited or even shut down due to concerns about gene patents.

Oh yeah one other thing , Marconi didn't invent the radio, he just got the patent first.

[huugh]

It's simple huugh, if someone posts a picture and does not specifically mention who took it, they are implicitly taking credit for it.

That's quite a bit far stretched.
I would rather say that "taking credit" would happen if he posted the picture and said "this is my picture, I am the author".

If you are standing, or even having yourself photographed, next to my parked car, should I hit you in the face, assuming you are now taking the possesion of my car?

Posting the work itself, whether written or photographic, without at least having the decency to acknowledge the source is not.

Naming the source is always good. Not always possible.

If you happen to stumble on such pic, e.g. by Google image search, and it just happens to be stored on something like imageshack, or even better, completly random server, how would you get to know who the author is? Especially probable when you take into account, how Rob in post #19 suggests, if people are just creating their own "backup" files to save the traffic on the original server and at the same time post somewhere (e.g. on some forums) along with the picture also the author with five meter high letters and provide original link and create newspaper article about it?

Again, if someone insists on being properly identified as an author, he should use watermark.

[Rob]

...how would you get to know who the author is? Especially probable when you take into account, how Rob in post #19 suggests, if people are just creating their own "backup" files to save the traffic on the original server...

Haha! I guess I somehow trapped myself with that. After some further reading I found out that this practice would actually be considered copyright infringement in the US because you make a copy. In many European countries this is not the case. :rolleyes: When it comes to pictures, you are often encouraged to place them on your own webspace if you want to link to them because many people had legal and financial issues with their hosting providers because all out of the sudden their websites generated three, four or five times as much traffic as usual because someone hotlinked to one or more pictures of them on some forums. As most of this forum's members are from the US, forget about it... :o

So, opinions vary geographically but I still consider marking work that was created by others necessary wether it is located on your server or not because I think this is more about good manners than legal issues. And I am not a lawyer anyways...

Naming the source is always good. Not always possible.

Why not? You can always place a link to the original image somewhere, or state that it is not your work but you also don't know who the creator is.

Cheers, Rob

[Rob]

...how would you get to know who the author is? Especially probable when you take into account, how Rob in post #19 suggests, if people are just creating their own "backup" files to save the traffic on the original server...

Haha! I guess I somehow trapped myself with that. After some further reading I found out that this practice would actually be considered copyright infringement in the US because you make a copy. In many European countries this is not the case. :rolleyes: When it comes to pictures, you are often encouraged to place them on your own webspace if you want to link to them because many people had legal and financial issues with their hosting providers because all out of the sudden their websites generated three, four or five times as much traffic as usual because someone hotlinked to one or more pictures of them on some forums. As most of this forum's members are from the US, forget about it... :o

So, opinions vary geographically but I still consider marking work that was created by others necessary wether it is located on your server or not because I think this is more about good manners than legal issues. And I am not a lawyer anyways...

Naming the source is always good. Not always possible./QUOTE]

Why not? You can always place a link to the original image somewhere, or state that it is not your work but you also don't know who the creator is.

Cheers, Rob

[The Deacon]

If you are standing, or even having yourself photographed, next to my parked car, should I hit you in the face, assuming you are now taking the possesion of my car?

You certainly can dream up some far fetched ways to defend the indefensible. There's a world of difference between casual and often unavoidable proximity and actually taking something. So the answer to your absurd question would be "of course not", although you'd have every right to ask me not to photograph your car. If I did take such a photo and then posted it on an internet forum devoted to that make of car without indicating that the car was not mine, you'd have a right to call me on that.

[Donut]

In my opinion, since they did not remove the imagestamps, they did not remove the credit to the authors. Everyone who sees wouter's web address, can look and see who is the owner of the picture.

[Mr Blonde]

Nah, I don't feel 'ripped off' or anything. It looks like a fellow knife enthusuiast who's just showing off some pictures in a discussion forum. I'll admit that I'm glad I stamp my pics to show the source, but I personally don't consider this 'image theft'.

Wouter

[noddy]

.. a fellow knife enthusuiast who's just showing off some pictures in a discussion forum. ...

:) Exactly right

There is nothing stolen here - run the text through Babelfish would help too :D :D Mind you Babelfish is a bit of a prankster sometimes :lol:

I link to other knife nuts pictures all the time, and mine crop up elsewhere too - sometimes I remember to credit sometimes not - a credit is nice - but frankly we're all just showing off our goodies to each other here - seems that's his point of view too. In any case copyright is law that is only ever used by large coprporations, and only then if they feel they are losing loot. It was written by and for them in the main

That's not us, I think

In many ways such pics are the oxygen of our community. And it is not as if when we say 'as luck would have it" we add Falstaff, Merry Wives of Windsor, Wm Shakespeare afterwards

**** gorgeous Mules them though - respect to one and all!!!

[Jay_Ev]

if you dont want photos stolen, dont put them on the internet

If you do not want your pictures "stolen", do not post them.

I'm on this side of the argument. A person who posts something on the internet does so with the full knowledge that the possibility exists that someone can copy it. The original owner of the content is not exempt from responsibility and accountability.

I'm not saying that it's right or that I agree with it, just that I think too many times people will claim ignorance and play the victim card instead of saying to themselves "I'm taking a risk by posting this picture".

[Peter1960]

@ Jay_Ev: If you don't want that somebody is telling you, your argument is totally stupid, don't post your argument. What do you think now?
No offense! I respect your position, but I can't agree.

Did you consider, that US-law and EU-law is different for pictures in internet?

[huugh]

@ Jay_Ev: If you don't want that somebody is telling you, your argument is totally stupid, don't post your argument. What do you think now?
No offense! I respect your position, but I can't agree.

Did you consider, that US-law and EU-law is different for pictures in internet?

Fine. For the third time.
It is very simple.
There are ways how to demonstrate that you are the author, watermark probably being the easiest.
If you can't be bothered to use it, why are you bothered afterwards, that someone else is NOT bending backwards to edit the picture to add something to identify you as an author (e.g. the watermark the original author could have added in the first place)? Because, that is the only way how to satisfy all whiners who may feel that "credit is not given".

Oh, btw, dear Deacon, you don't have to read the following, as it is another "dreamed up far fetched way to defend the indefensible" :rolleyes:

How do you get over this example?
Person A posted in a forums Z the picture made by person B and used fifteen different ways to identify the original author.
Person C found said picture on an image hosting server. He liked it and he posted it on forums X. This time, because he was so caring about "giving credit", he claimed the person A to be the original author, because he didn't even know about the existence of forums Z and the picture itself doesn't give any clues it may be otherwise.

Now, is this "giving credit" situation somehow better, especially for person B? I don't think so.

I feel this whole thread is just debate about superfluous worries of oversensitive individuals and frankly, it is getting tedious.

[The Deacon]

Huugh, you've merely provided an excellent example of why lifting images off image servers, rather than taking the time and making the effort to determine their original context, and refraining from using them if you cannot, is unethical.

It's obvious there are two schools of thought on this, and very little likelihood of reconciling those views. I suspect some of it is based on folks wanting to feel good about their own behavior. While, admittedly, the post on the Italian forum that Marion posted represents a relatively minor breach of ethics compared with those cited by Ted, there are lines that, once crossed, become blurred. Accepting that only encourages others to cross them further. I'd prefer not to live in a society where, if the windshield wipers were stolen off my car, folks would say it was my fault for not removing them.

[Clawhammer]

....superfluous worries of oversensitive individuals and frankly, it is getting tedious.

My ears are burning....are you guys talking about me?...What been happening over here? :D :p

[huugh]

Huugh, you've merely provided an excellent example of why 1) lifting images off image servers, rather than 2) taking the time and making the effort to determine their original context, and refraining from using them if you cannot, is unethical.

Sigh.
As for 1), it is out of context - how would it differ, if it was not "backed up" by third party, but the original image of the original author, found on the image hosting server?

As for 2) What you are trying to say, one should never use someone else's picture if it is not "signed"?

[noddy]

It's obvious there are two schools of thought on this....

And not just on this issue. There is the original internet culture of freedoms and non ownerships. And there is the proprietorial, 'gimme' stuff that is emerging latterly

This didn't used to be a problem. Suddenly everyone's an entrepreneur with rights to protect, rather than a freely and generously contributing member of a creative community. It is all to do with the world you want to live in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
http://en.wikipedia.org/

[The Deacon]

As for 2) What you are trying to say, one should never use someone else's picture if it is not "signed"?

No, I'm saying that one should not just lift images off an image hosting server. One should only use an image if one can determine the actual owner. Ideally, one should ask the owner's permission but, if that's not feasible one should credit the owner. Just because I park my car in a public garage, it's not reasonable to assume I'd be pleased to find you sitting on it.

And not just on this issue. There is the original internet culture of freedoms and non ownerships. And there is the proprietorial, 'gimme' stuff that is emerging latterly

This didn't used to be a problem. Suddenly everyone's an entrepreneur with rights to protect, rather than a freely and generously contributing member of a creative community. It is all to do with the world you want to live in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
http://en.wikipedia.org/

I'd rather not live in a world where everyone simply assumes anything not nailed down is free for the taking.

How about a middle ground, where what's "mine" is "mine" unless I specifically put it in the public domain. In the case of photographs on a website, that would mean putting a disclaimer along the lines of:

"The images on this site were taken by me. I grant permission to anyone to use them with or without attribution."

You want to write software and give it away, wonderful, that should be your right. Someone else wants to market theirs, that should be their right. Even most "freeware" authors ask you not to claim authorship of their work. The "internet culture" has harbored a den of thieves almost as long as it has existed. It has been used to facilitate the "sharing" of both methods to steal software and stolen software itself from early on. It's just a modern form of piracy, a "culture" which has existed far, far, longer than the internet, and is still deemed to be antisocial behavior by most.

You should also note that Wikipedia is VERY careful about the use of images. You can't just Google something up and post it on a Wiki page.

[Peter1960]

Fine. For the third time.
It is very simple.

With all due respect, no it is not simple! Sir, do you have an idea how many laws in different countries whole over the world exist, only in matter of usage rights of images/photos? It's not necessary to show author marks in photos. If it's not your own photo it belongs to an other person. That's what I call simple.

What I'm telling now is only for pictures of Spyderco knives on your own kitchen table or something else: If you want to be on the safe side, use and show only pictures taken by you. That is the simple and safe way and nothing else.

If you or somebody else tries to convince me to use other ways, you should have good and solid arguments on legal basis and not on basis of your own view

[huugh]

With all due respect, no it is not simple! Sir, do you have an idea how many laws in different countries whole over the world exist, only in matter of usage rights of images/photos? It's not necessary to show author marks in photos.

Are you aware, that it is not even settled very much, how different national laws should be applied in case of internet access?
Are you aware, that there is BIG difference between showing an image and claiming to be the author of the image?

If it's not your own photo it belongs to an other person. That's what I call simple.

Fascinating. :rolleyes: Have I even once posted something contrary to this?

If you or somebody else tries to convince me to use other ways, you should have good and solid arguments on legal basis and not on basis of your own view

Have you ever heard of "That what is not forbidden is permitted"? It should be you who is trying to convince me with "good and solid arguments" that posting a picture (or even posting a link to a picture) is in fact illegal (let me remind you of marking it as "theft").
I would be especially interested in the legal reasoning for "by posting a picture ...you are implicitly taking credit for it".

If you feel that the merits of the case of copyright's infringement is carried out simply by someone posting (i.e. merely providing a link to it) a publicly accessible picture on forums, go ahead, make for the nearest court and demand justice :rolleyes: Which is in fact the only source of getting something else than personal views.

It could even be argued, that by the fact that you deliberately uploaded the contents so that they are freely accessible by third parties without informing on your terms of use, you are ipso facto agreeing with the public viewing them as such, i.e. being freely accessible to view.

[Peter1960]

Are you aware, that it is not even settled very much, how different national laws should be applied in case of internet access? ...

Please give me the relevant links and I will study them. Only links with legal content please. Thanks!

[huugh]

Please give me the relevant links and I will study them. Only links with legal content please. Thanks!

If you are expecting me to provide background research for an area where lawyers get confused and lawsuits are held because of the unclearness of the subject, I have to disappoint you.

But nevertheless, you asked for links.
http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/jurisd ... _ec_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/applic ... int_en.htm
Some poupular lawsuits:
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/n ... 1143e35d55
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/N ... 0b8033c5fd
http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/20 ... _0007.html
Plethora of reference to US lawsuits:
http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/juris.htm