Photos posted on Cyclechat being used elsewhere

[mjr]

Now when we link to a photo on the web, CC makes a copy of it and stores it locally. As far as I can tell, once the copy is made it's impossible to identify where the image came from.

So if CC is not respecting other websites' copyright, I don't see how they could take a stand on others doing the same.

Copyright ain't fair. CC's ability to enforce any copyright it has would not require its own hands being clean, although it makes CC vulnerable to other people pursuing it. I wish CC would acknowledge/link the sources for the images it has copied, in line with the legal requirement for commentary, as I feel it would simplify the most common cases of linking an img (that it's either commentary on it or that it's using an image with permission, both of which usually require the source to be acknowledged).

Also, in this case, the poster holds copyright too and they're not to blame for what CC may do. As far as I can tell, at no point has anyone told the ebay seller that they have permission to reproduce (fnarr) and so the law says they don't and the poster of the image can require them to stop, plus it seems ebay's terms also require them to stop. It's pretty much open and shut.

 

[User33236]

You can make it look nasty as @User33236 suggests, but please don't do that .

I certainly don’t advocate that myself but I know a number of amateur photographers that do.

Personally I don’t post my better images on open sites.

 

[mjr]

Most relevant is point (d) - I made it clear that it was a quotation; I wasn't passing off someone else's work as my own.

And you satisfied a, b and c, in my opinion.

But a good gag by @Dogtrousers none the less.

I thought it was a rare bum note from D, rather predictable because whenever copyright infringement is discussed, there's always some whining that someone-or-other shouldn't comment because they infringe copyright too, often based on some misunderstanding of what's permitted.

 

[smutchin]

I think you're taking his post a wee bit too seriously!

 

[smutchin]

Seriously?

In that case, here's a bit more context:

See also: https://lifehacker.com/193343/ask-the-law-geek--is-publishing-screenshots-fair-use

 

[mjr]

I think you're taking his post a wee bit too seriously!

I was taking it as a joke, but not a funny one because it's too similar to what some people post seriously to this sort of discussion.

 

[steveindenmark]

No problem? The bloke is operating a business and using an image belonging to the OP. If he wants to use it then he should pay for the privilege. I’m sure sites like Alamy wouldn’t hold back in hitting him with an invoice if he nabbed one from them.

To answer the second part:

Short answer no.

Long answer. No but can cut down / eliminate it by making any photos you upload undesirable by using low res, heavily watermarked images.

The OP cannot see a problem with it either.

The seller is not saying it is the item, but how it will look. The OP could do as you suggest and invoice the seller. But it could be a long drawn out and expensive process of the seller refuses to pay.

 

[User33236]

The OP cannot see a problem with it either.

The seller is not saying it is the item, but how it will look. The OP could do as you suggest and invoice the seller. But it could be a long drawn out and expensive process of the seller refuses to pay.

I certainly wouldn't expect the seller to stump up willingly, nor would I go to the expense or time of chasing it. I as much said that earlier up thread. But what an invoice would do is possibly prevent him doing the same again for fear of someone deciding to enforce an invoice next time round.

I know several individuals who have chased it through the small claims court and won.

 

[simon.r]

I really don’t see a problem.

Maybe if a large company was using my photos, or if I was a professional photographer it’d be different, but the seller looks to me like an individual who’s making a few quid by importing and selling bike bits on at a small profit.

He replied to my email quickly, apologised and was polite.

I can see that technically he’s breaking ebay’s rules, but it’s not hurting me in any way.

 

[User33236]

I really don’t see a problem.

Maybe if a large company was using my photos, or if I was a professional photographer it’d be different, but the seller looks to me like an individual who’s making a few quid by importing and selling bike bits on at a small profit.

He replied to my email quickly, apologised and was polite.

I can see that technically he’s breaking ebay’s rules, but it’s not hurting me in any way.

It may not be hurting you but the problem is that because individuals feel like they can use photos freely and unchallenged then they continue to do so as do many many other people. The next thing you know pros and semi-pros get their images nicked too costing them money.

You only have to look at FB to see heavily watermarked images people have found on sites like marathonphotos, and didn't want to pay for it, that they use as a profile picture.

I implore everyone who takes photos to vigorously defend their copyright of that image as its the only way to fight back and begin to break that atitiude.

 

[simon.r]

It may not be hurting you but the problem is that because individuals feel like they can use photos freely and unchallenged then they continue to do so as do many many other people. The next thing you know pros and semi-pros get their images nicked too costing them money.

You only have to look at FB to see heavily watermarked images people have found on sites like marathonphotos, and didn't want to pay for it, that they use as a profile picture.

I implore everyone who takes photos to vigorously defend their copyright of that image as its the only way to fight back and begin to break that atitiude.

I can’t help thinking that’s a battle that’s inevitably going to be lost, much like the music industry has lost the battle against people illegally downloading and sharing music.

What the answer is I don’t know.

 

[User33236]

I can’t help thinking that’s a battle that’s inevitably going to be lost, much like the music industry has lost the battle against people illegally downloading and sharing music.

What the answer is I don’t know.

Well it will will that defeatist attitude

 

[Shaun]

It does look like the site copyright terms have gone AWOL.

No they haven't. Bottom of this page: https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/guidelines.213512/

You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this site.

Now when we link to a photo on the web, CC makes a copy of it and stores it locally. As far as I can tell, once the copy is made it's impossible to identify where the image came from. So if CC is not respecting other websites' copyright, I don't see how they could take a stand on others doing the same.

A record is kept of the origin URL when it is converted and stored on CC. Should we receive a take-down request which corresponds with the author's site and origin URL we will honour the removal immediately.

As to copying in general - whilst people should respect your copyright and not use your images without permission, when you post them on public websites you make them available for people to copy and they do. I appreciate "everyone does it" is not an excuse, but ... everyone does it these days without thinking about it, and your images will be no different.

With that in mind, keep your absolute best photos to yourself and don't post them online. If you must, post them at such a small size or low quality that they would be of little or no practical use for anyone copying them. Alternatively consider adding a watermark or prominent copyright notice in an area of the image that it would be difficult to crop without ruining the "shot" for the person wanting to use it.

Unfortunately there isn't much CC can do for images you have uploaded here on threads that are public, but if you'd like to restrict viewing to members only you should upload them to the Media Gallery where you can limit who can view them.

Cheers,
Shaun

 

[mjr]

Is that really all the copyright terms? So we're not allowed to post images that we have permission for (including creative commons)? So we're not allowed to post excerpts for commentary? And we're not required to give CC permission to do anything with the images we upload?

 

[Shut Up Legs]

you should upload them to the Media Gallery where you can limit who can view them.

Cheers,
Shaun

How do we restrict access to images in the media gallery, or to albums? I couldn't find any controls to do this.