OPINIONS WANTED: What should we do about images?

[_Yoda]

Hoe does Joseph figure out which images have a copyright? Isn't it from some metadata included in the image file? If so, can't the board software be programmed to catch copyrighted images and disallow them? I know it's not foolproof, but it should make it harder for narcs.

Shades, as you have expressed concern for the amount of work, perhaps you could find some other solution that would minimize overall work? For example, repeat offenders might be punished in some manner--perhaps by disabling images for them.

This is a good thought, Abman. I believe that Keene still handles most of the coding. Maybe Shades can talk with him about this possibility.

[_Yoda]

On images, why don't those who want to post get permission to do so from the copyright owner? Is it so damned difficult for many of you to ASK for permission rather than stealing the intellectual property of others? Or do you believe this kind of thing should not apply to your taking cars from others and items from the store?

I have a question regarding this, Joseph. As long as the poster credits the artist, and lists where the picture was originally located, wouldn't that suffice the copyright law?

This is what we do currently with written work. When someone is referencing an article, or a quote from a book, we give the author credit, and include the Internet link where we got the source material from.

Isn't this all we would have to do here?

I think there is a huge difference between referencing and stealing.

When we use the img code here, as has been pointed out previously, we are merely hot-linking that photo directly to the site we received it from. That's quite different from stealing since the photo is not really housed on MDB, even after it is posted.

If we take the extra step of crediting the artist, that should satisfy the free use requirement, should it not?

It seems rather laborious to have to jump through hoops trying to contact an artist to ask permission to merely reference a photo he/she took on an obscure website. If we are giving the artist credit, the same as we give authors credit when we reference articles, I would think we would be satisfying the law.

Am I missing something here?

[_Simon Belmont]

But, I won't notify any poster of anything if they have posted a 'ban Joseph' or 'ignore' or similar thing on here.

Threats too? Does this moron know no bounds?

[_asbestosman]

I will do with Shades what I said I will do.

But, I won't notify any poster of anything if they have posted a 'ban Joseph' or 'ignore' or similar thing on here.

Does "Joseph is a moron" count?


Joseph reminds me of Casey Jones from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles who doesn't distinguish between Jaywalkers and murderers.

*gasp* Litterbug! Illegal parker!

[_Joseph]

liz wrote: "I have a question regarding this, Joseph. As long as the poster credits the artist, and lists where the picture was originally located, wouldn't that suffice the copyright law?"

No.

An artist has the right to control use of their image. This includes display. Fair use has exceptions to the control.

Those like the porn writer post their photos publicly and as such have a 90 day window to register the copyright or face the real possibility of having their photos enter 'public doman' and lose the right to enforce copyright restrictions - and possibly face DMCA false filing problems.

It is not difficult to check an image out. I found it very easy to locate the copyright owner on the four I checked out. One had no problem and only wanted a credit line. Two said no way without written permission/credit line(and one of those might not grant use on this site even then) and one would want written permission and payment of fees.

Just like borrowing or renting a car, the owner is the one to ask.

Some posters are correct in their assessment that a number would not check or would post deliberately in trying to cause problems.

I can see Deseret News and l-dsinc linked and owned sites letting some image use build up and then hitting the site with a sledghammer DMCA takedown notice for dozens of photos used without permission. Would not put that action past them.

Those whining about getting caught sound like every other low rent scrote that gets caught - somehow the laws should not apply to them.

[_beastie]

I wonder if we have a fund-raiser if we could pay another board to take Joseph off our hands.

[_Buffalo]

I wonder if we have a fund-raiser if we could pay another board to take Joseph off our hands.

I'm not sure we could raise that much money.

[_asbestosman]

Another possibility: only enable viewing images if you are a registered, regular poster who isn't a loose cannon. That should make it more difficult for narcs.

[_zeezrom]

Shades,

C'mon dude! Why is this even a question? Do whatever the hell it takes to get images back. Become a bigoted, one-sided, communist forum if you have to! Ironically, without images, this place will look like North Korea!

We desperately need imagery! Desperately!

Zee.

[_Joseph]

Remember l-dsinc clubbing the Tanners over publishing some of the church handbook. They waited and then basically threatened to bankrupt them - and l-dsinc has the financial means to do so. The tanners might have won in court but it would have been years down the road and most likely a few million dollars in legal fees later - if they were not hounded into early heart attacks by the slc gang.

It could easily happen here with the use of DMCA notices on a number of photos owned by l-dsinc businesses.