Hey folks. We have a new contributer, but he seems to be okay with ripping images from listsofjohn.com and reposting them (admittedly w/ attribution).
http://www.summitpost.org/mountain/rock ... ntain.html
I really can't say I appreciate this behavior. Let's get a discussion started. Is this acceptable or not?
Image Reposting
21 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Image Reposting
by RyanS » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:11 am
-
RyanS - Posts: 1580
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 9:55 am
- Location: Denver, Colorado, United States
- Thanked: 5 times in 3 posts
by Bob Sihler » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:26 am
It's only acceptable if he has the photographers' permission, which I assume he does not. Even then, I think it's bad form to post pictures that aren't your own, though there are some exceptions to this (example-- historical photos).
I do suggest, though, considering his age, a gentle approach to dealing with this. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt at first and then see what the response is.
I do suggest, though, considering his age, a gentle approach to dealing with this. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt at first and then see what the response is.
-
Bob Sihler - Forum Moderator
- Posts: 6215
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:20 pm
- Location: Herndon, Virginia
- Thanked: 1221 times in 685 posts
by RyanS » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:34 am
Bob Sihler wrote:I do suggest, though, considering his age, a gentle approach to dealing with this. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt at first and then see what the response is.
Fair enough! I didn't check his profile to see his age. He PM'ed me asking that I add links to his pages on the 13ers List.-
RyanS - Posts: 1580
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 9:55 am
- Location: Denver, Colorado, United States
- Thanked: 5 times in 3 posts
by Sarah Simon » Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:27 am
Ryan,
Yeah, I took a look at some of the contributions by the poster you are referring to.
I am not at all comfortable with doing a "save image as" of someone else's work and then re-posting them under your own SP profile, with our without giving credit to the original photographer.
I have, on occasion, been unable to obtain a decent profile shot of a peak and been unable to find an existing photo of the peak on SP to include as my Mountain Page profile shot (with credit to the poster, of course.) I have, in those limited instances, contacted the individual who shot the profile photo on LoJ and asked them to kindly post the image to SP so that I could reference their photo in my Mountain Page. This approach gives the photographer the option to say: No thanks.
Ryan, did you contact this individual? I'm curious to know the outcome. I certainly want to encourage quality contributions to SP, but also feel the community has a responsibility to drive ethical practices.
Sarah
Yeah, I took a look at some of the contributions by the poster you are referring to.
I am not at all comfortable with doing a "save image as" of someone else's work and then re-posting them under your own SP profile, with our without giving credit to the original photographer.
I have, on occasion, been unable to obtain a decent profile shot of a peak and been unable to find an existing photo of the peak on SP to include as my Mountain Page profile shot (with credit to the poster, of course.) I have, in those limited instances, contacted the individual who shot the profile photo on LoJ and asked them to kindly post the image to SP so that I could reference their photo in my Mountain Page. This approach gives the photographer the option to say: No thanks.
Ryan, did you contact this individual? I'm curious to know the outcome. I certainly want to encourage quality contributions to SP, but also feel the community has a responsibility to drive ethical practices.
Sarah
-
Sarah Simon - Posts: 903
- Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:01 am
- Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States
- Thanked: 208 times in 88 posts
by Deleted User » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:00 am
I say cut him some slack...and give him a frikkin' medal for getting off the sofa. BTW even Microsoft is pretty relaxed about usage of pics for non-commercial purposes. I think attribution with direct link is warranted...permission optional. It's Summitpost, after all.
edit: You'd have a hard time against Justin in light of the following decision which has very similar parallels to this case (New Law Being Made on Use of Images on the Internet)
The defendant's visual search engine scanned Kelly's photographs without the copyright information attached, onto its indexed database of approximately two million images. The images were reproduced in a much smaller, "thumbnail" size. In January, 1999, around 35 of Kelly's images were indexed by the Ditto crawler.
Kelly argued that such use by Ditto violated Kelly's copyright protections under the federal law (17 U.S.C. 106). There was no dispute but that Kelly had copyrights on his photos nor that Ditto reproduced them without the copyright information attached. Ditto did not have Kelly's permission to reproduce the images.
Federal Judge Gary L. Taylor held that Ditto's use of the images was a copyright violation but that such use fell within the "fair use" exception. The "fair use" exception allows use of material without the permission of the owner if the purpose is for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research. In making this decision, Judge Taylor reviewed the 4 criteria set up in the federal law to be considered in a particular case of fair use. The criteria are as follows:
(1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) The nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Attorney Judith B. Jennison of Perkins Cole in Menlo Park, California represents Ditto and argued that requiring search engines to obtain permission before coping images or other material would be too cumbersome. Judge Taylor opined that Ditto's copying of Kelly's images fell within the "fair use" exception using the above criteria mainly because of the established importance of search engines and the "transformative" nature of using reduced versions of images to organize and provide access to them. Judge Taylor states: "Kelly's photos are artistic works used for illustrative purposes. Ditto's visual search engine is designed to catalog and improve access to images on the internet. The character of the thumbnail index is not esthetic but functional; its purpose is not to be artistic, but to be comprehensive."
While the Judge did not use the analogy, his reasoning appears to analogize the search engine index to a bibliography of what's available on the internet. Such indexing is done regularly by publications found in libraries and deemed research tools and are not questioned. In this case, the difference is that the image itself was reproduced. The viewer could click on the thumbnail sketch and the image would enlarge to allow viewers to download it if desired. The Judge was concerned that this enlarging could be done without providing a viewing of the rest of the originating Web page but went on find, on balance, fair use by Ditto.
The Judge found persuasive the fact that Ditto stated that there could be copyrights involved and referred the viewer to the Web sites as well as the fact that the use by Ditto did not adversely affect the market value of Kelly's Web sites. Ditto's use of the images did not compete with Kelly's use of his images which is to promote his book and business.
edit: You'd have a hard time against Justin in light of the following decision which has very similar parallels to this case (New Law Being Made on Use of Images on the Internet)
The defendant's visual search engine scanned Kelly's photographs without the copyright information attached, onto its indexed database of approximately two million images. The images were reproduced in a much smaller, "thumbnail" size. In January, 1999, around 35 of Kelly's images were indexed by the Ditto crawler.
Kelly argued that such use by Ditto violated Kelly's copyright protections under the federal law (17 U.S.C. 106). There was no dispute but that Kelly had copyrights on his photos nor that Ditto reproduced them without the copyright information attached. Ditto did not have Kelly's permission to reproduce the images.
Federal Judge Gary L. Taylor held that Ditto's use of the images was a copyright violation but that such use fell within the "fair use" exception. The "fair use" exception allows use of material without the permission of the owner if the purpose is for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research. In making this decision, Judge Taylor reviewed the 4 criteria set up in the federal law to be considered in a particular case of fair use. The criteria are as follows:
(1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) The nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Attorney Judith B. Jennison of Perkins Cole in Menlo Park, California represents Ditto and argued that requiring search engines to obtain permission before coping images or other material would be too cumbersome. Judge Taylor opined that Ditto's copying of Kelly's images fell within the "fair use" exception using the above criteria mainly because of the established importance of search engines and the "transformative" nature of using reduced versions of images to organize and provide access to them. Judge Taylor states: "Kelly's photos are artistic works used for illustrative purposes. Ditto's visual search engine is designed to catalog and improve access to images on the internet. The character of the thumbnail index is not esthetic but functional; its purpose is not to be artistic, but to be comprehensive."
While the Judge did not use the analogy, his reasoning appears to analogize the search engine index to a bibliography of what's available on the internet. Such indexing is done regularly by publications found in libraries and deemed research tools and are not questioned. In this case, the difference is that the image itself was reproduced. The viewer could click on the thumbnail sketch and the image would enlarge to allow viewers to download it if desired. The Judge was concerned that this enlarging could be done without providing a viewing of the rest of the originating Web page but went on find, on balance, fair use by Ditto.
The Judge found persuasive the fact that Ditto stated that there could be copyrights involved and referred the viewer to the Web sites as well as the fact that the use by Ditto did not adversely affect the market value of Kelly's Web sites. Ditto's use of the images did not compete with Kelly's use of his images which is to promote his book and business.
- Deleted User
- Posts: 16737675
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 5:07 am
- Thanked: 9 times in 5 posts
I wasn't talking about filing suit against him.by Bob Sihler » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:59 pm
It's about more than just legality; it's about ethics and what we want this site to be-- a site built on members' own contributions.
That's why I say this shouldn't go but that considering the age of the member, a gentler approach should be used. If it were an adult member, I'd say nuke the profile.
That's why I say this shouldn't go but that considering the age of the member, a gentler approach should be used. If it were an adult member, I'd say nuke the profile.
-
Bob Sihler - Forum Moderator
- Posts: 6215
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:20 pm
- Location: Herndon, Virginia
- Thanked: 1221 times in 685 posts
by Sarah Simon » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:11 pm
On another note, one thing this community values greatly is when perspective is added to a photo, basically "on which date" and "from which perspective / or looking in which direction."
How can someone who did not take a photo add that level of value to a picture?
Additionally, while there may be exceptions (broken camera during an outting, etc.) I have much more trust that the page I'm reading on SP is based on first-hand knowledge when the poster provides all/most photos complete with captions, then when the majority of photos (or ALL photos) on a page are borrowed from other contributors.
Posting pages that contain photography from other contributors but none of your own calls the whole "first hand knowledge" factor into serious question.
No one here is talking about penalties or being gruff. We're talking about upholding ethics and about the opportunity to take the high road and guide a junior member of the community in the right direction.
How can someone who did not take a photo add that level of value to a picture?
Additionally, while there may be exceptions (broken camera during an outting, etc.) I have much more trust that the page I'm reading on SP is based on first-hand knowledge when the poster provides all/most photos complete with captions, then when the majority of photos (or ALL photos) on a page are borrowed from other contributors.
Posting pages that contain photography from other contributors but none of your own calls the whole "first hand knowledge" factor into serious question.
No one here is talking about penalties or being gruff. We're talking about upholding ethics and about the opportunity to take the high road and guide a junior member of the community in the right direction.
-
Sarah Simon - Posts: 903
- Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:01 am
- Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States
- Thanked: 208 times in 88 posts
by Bob Sihler » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:28 pm
sarah.simon wrote:Posting pages that contain photography from other contributors but none of your own calls the whole "first hand knowledge" factor into serious question.
No one here is talking about penalties or being gruff. We're talking about upholding ethics and about the opportunity to take the high road and guide a junior member of the community in the right direction.
Exactly. Good post.
-
Bob Sihler - Forum Moderator
- Posts: 6215
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:20 pm
- Location: Herndon, Virginia
- Thanked: 1221 times in 685 posts
Permission, attribution and a link back to the original
by TimmyC » Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:58 pm
I agree with several different folks, but on several different points. Hm...
- @Fort Mental: I totally agree with attribution and a link back to the original page. To be clear, though, the linkback should go to the image on the page, i.e. the image in its original context. This is important because just linking to the image alone disembodies the image somewhat. Would you agree with that extension of your argument?
- @sarah.simon: The original page might have the firsthand info that you describe, and that I agree is of the most value. But your first post makes a point that I agree with even more strongly: the owner of the image should have the opportunity to say no. "It's on the intarwebs so it's all freeee" doesn't work in the day of Creative Commons (and shouldn't have worked before CC, when copyright was -- sorry. Ranting.) On the first image on the page in question (http://www.summitpost.org/view_object.php?object_id=553095), it looks pretty clearly like Justin has not gotten the image owner's permission. There's no reply to Sarah Thompson's comment, and I wouldn't want to make an assumption about Justin not having subsequently discussed the issue with her, but... well, I think you see where I'm going. Permission has got to be explicit; implicit permission just doesn't work.
- @Bob Sihler: Yours is the point I'm most shy to address. I'm new here myself (longtime reader, new contributor, etc.), but I tend to agree with the ethical stance you offer. I just don't know how hardline the community should be on that point because, again, I'm new, too, so all I can provide on that point is my agreement to your posts and to sarah.simon's second post about ethics/style/contribution.
- @Fort Mental: I totally agree with attribution and a link back to the original page. To be clear, though, the linkback should go to the image on the page, i.e. the image in its original context. This is important because just linking to the image alone disembodies the image somewhat. Would you agree with that extension of your argument?
- @sarah.simon: The original page might have the firsthand info that you describe, and that I agree is of the most value. But your first post makes a point that I agree with even more strongly: the owner of the image should have the opportunity to say no. "It's on the intarwebs so it's all freeee" doesn't work in the day of Creative Commons (and shouldn't have worked before CC, when copyright was -- sorry. Ranting.) On the first image on the page in question (http://www.summitpost.org/view_object.php?object_id=553095), it looks pretty clearly like Justin has not gotten the image owner's permission. There's no reply to Sarah Thompson's comment, and I wouldn't want to make an assumption about Justin not having subsequently discussed the issue with her, but... well, I think you see where I'm going. Permission has got to be explicit; implicit permission just doesn't work.
- @Bob Sihler: Yours is the point I'm most shy to address. I'm new here myself (longtime reader, new contributor, etc.), but I tend to agree with the ethical stance you offer. I just don't know how hardline the community should be on that point because, again, I'm new, too, so all I can provide on that point is my agreement to your posts and to sarah.simon's second post about ethics/style/contribution.
-
TimmyC - Posts: 53
- Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 11:59 pm
- Location: Seattle, Washington, United States
- Thanked: 4 times in 2 posts
by Deleted User » Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:01 pm
One doesn't even own the material one posts to this site :
By posting Content to SP, you grant SP a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, and otherwise use, with or without attribution such Content solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting SP. SP reserves the right to syndicate Content submitted, posted or displayed by you and use that Content in connection with any of the services offered by SP.
By posting Content to SP, you grant SP a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, and otherwise use, with or without attribution such Content solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting SP. SP reserves the right to syndicate Content submitted, posted or displayed by you and use that Content in connection with any of the services offered by SP.
- Deleted User
- Posts: 16737675
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 5:07 am
- Thanked: 9 times in 5 posts
by mconnell » Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:34 pm
FortMental wrote:One doesn't even own the material one posts to this site :
By posting Content to SP, you grant SP a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, and otherwise use, with or without attribution such Content solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting SP. SP reserves the right to syndicate Content submitted, posted or displayed by you and use that Content in connection with any of the services offered by SP.
Granting license does not give up ownership.
- mconnell
- Posts: 7415
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 4:28 pm
- Location: Divide, Colorado, United States
- Thanked: 105 times in 66 posts
by Deleted User » Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:46 pm
Big deal, under such terms, ownership is moot, like any "ownership" of materials posted on line to any site not your own. Regardless, we'd be wiser to think of our posted materials as being freely available (public domain) for the collaborative purpose of building an excellent aggregate/reference site for all to use for free. Enough of this self-important baloney.Granting license does not give up ownership
I'm all for attribution, but the manners police (at Summitpost) have to draw the line at having to "ask for permission".
- Deleted User
- Posts: 16737675
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 5:07 am
- Thanked: 9 times in 5 posts
by mconnell » Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:02 pm
FortMental wrote:Big deal, under such terms, ownership is moot, like any "ownership" of materials posted on line to any site not your own. Regardless, we'd be wiser to think of our posted materials as being freely available (public domain) for the collaborative purpose of building an excellent aggregate/reference site for all to use for free. Enough of this self-important baloney.Granting license does not give up ownership
I'm all for attribution, but the manners police (at Summitpost) have to draw the line at having to "ask for permission".
It's not about manners. Its about legal liability.
Under the SP terms, SP owners can use it for SP purposes. That doesn't give any rights to anyone else, including SP members.
- mconnell
- Posts: 7415
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 4:28 pm
- Location: Divide, Colorado, United States
- Thanked: 105 times in 66 posts
by Bob Sihler » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:35 pm
mconnell wrote:FortMental wrote:Big deal, under such terms, ownership is moot, like any "ownership" of materials posted on line to any site not your own. Regardless, we'd be wiser to think of our posted materials as being freely available (public domain) for the collaborative purpose of building an excellent aggregate/reference site for all to use for free. Enough of this self-important baloney.Granting license does not give up ownership
I'm all for attribution, but the manners police (at Summitpost) have to draw the line at having to "ask for permission".
It's not about manners. Its about legal liability.
Under the SP terms, SP owners can use it for SP purposes. That doesn't give any rights to anyone else, including SP members.
Exactly, and that's perfectly clear from that section. This is also in the FAQ section:
2.17 Can I submit photos to SummitPost that I didn't take myself?
Not without the permission of the person who took the photo. Doing so otherwise would violate copyright law. SummitPost takes copyrights seriously. Posting material in violation of copyright law may be grounds for deletion of your submission and of your user account. Also, the copyright holder may prosecute you in court.
It is OK to post images whose copyright has expired, or images that are not subject to copyright (such as images made by the US Federal Government), or images which you have obtained the photographer's permission to post (be sure to state this in your caption text).
Take time to review SummitPost's Terms of Service.
2.18 If I submit my photos or writing to SummitPost, am I giving up my copyright to them?
No. You are authorizing SummitPost to display them on the SummitPost website, but posting to SummitPost does NOT give anyone permission to copy your works from SummitPost. Note, however that you are giving up the right to prevent modifications of your work: you are agreeing to SummitPost's policy of maintaining the site. You are giving the maintainer of a SummitPost page a license to make changes to your text as he/she sees fit, and to move your photos from one section of the page to another. You agree that someone else may someday become the maintainer of page(s) you create. SP management may also alter any text that may legally endanger SP.
SummitPost is a collaborative project, and pages are frequently the responsibility of more than one user. By granting permissions to another user, you allow that user to alter your text and images.
And legal issues aside, it's about ethics. I know this is the Internet age, but one still should not take without asking unless it is expressly in the public domain, as are USFS photos (as stated in the FAQ).
This is simple courtesy and integrity, something taught in grade school. It's not about being self-important.
I would never build a page using others' pictures exclusively. I have used others' photos on my pages, but only after they added or I asked. But that's not even the point here.
The issue is copying others' photos without permission and posting them through your own profile.
Attribution is not enough; we are not doing research papers here. This site is supposed to be about firsthand information, photos and otherwise.
There's no way we can police the Internet for people copying our submissions and posting them elsewhere, but we can show our fellow members here some respect and courtesy.
----------
By the way, someone mentioned earlier that the member in question had received permission to pull others' photos and post them here. That is not completely true. The person who started this thread is one such person who had his picture(s) copied and posted here, and he obviously had not given consent. Even though there was attribution, he was not happy about it, and I can't blame him.
-
Bob Sihler - Forum Moderator
- Posts: 6215
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:20 pm
- Location: Herndon, Virginia
- Thanked: 1221 times in 685 posts
21 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
-
- Related topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- Identify the mountains in this image
by sneakyracer » Wed Jul 07, 2010 5:19 pm - 9 Replies
- 863 Views
- Last post by chicagotransplant
Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:40 am
- Identify the mountains in this image
-
- Weminuche image orientation, location
by chursch » Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:05 pm - 3 Replies
- 380 Views
- Last post by mattpayne11
Thu Dec 24, 2009 7:47 am
- Weminuche image orientation, location
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
News
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.