Image Reposting

by **RyanS** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:11 am

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?

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.

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.

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

by **RyanS** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:04 am

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

by **mconnell** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:02 pm

FortMental wrote:
Granting license does not give up ownership
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.

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.

by **Bob Sihler** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:35 pm

mconnell wrote:
FortMental wrote:
Granting license does not give up ownership
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.

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.

by **RyanS** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:45 am

PeakAgitation wrote:The 15 year old SP'er obtained permission from the owner of the photograph and had apparently made that clear. He likely read and appears to have complied with SP section 2.17.

That's patently incorrect. While the member asked me to post his links on the 13ers page that Gareth and I maintain, he's not once asked permission of me or John Kirk and I presume this is also the case w/ SarahT.

Another thing that bothers me is the small image size of pics on John's site. While this is fine for John's site, they're really not up to snuff on SP. I have copies of the pics in question at much higher resolutions, and would gladly share them if I were asked.

EDIT: Just saw that Bob Sihler addressed this point, but I'll leave my post intact.

by **Bob Sihler** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:23 pm

FortMental wrote:
This is simple courtesy and integrity, something taught in grade school. It's not about being self-important.

Actually, it is, kind of. If photos were posted here with some manner of a Creative Commons License, we wouldn't have to sit around waiting for permission from the almighty owner to use a photo that could improve an informational page. In fact, if Wikipedia can do it.... Hell, so can I!

Well, we disagree. I can tell you speaking for myself that although I appreciate being asked, I don't mind if someone uses my picture without telling me first. What I would mind is, as this thread is about, taking someone else's picture and posting it through your own profile, attributed or not. You may think there's no difference, but I think there's a big one.

Edit: As far as the Wiki idea goes, I don't see SP having any trouble finding people who can contribute their own photos and information. The Additions and Corrections feature allows people to alert page maintainers of changes or other important information, and people can ask the Elves for permission to adopt abandoned pages.

If this were a Wiki-style site, imagine the battles over who displays what pictures where, whether a route is Class 3 or 4, etc. I don't think it would work well. I've heard things sometimes get intense and nasty on Wikipedia, and we don't need that here.

by **RyanS** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:40 am

For the record, I've now received an apology. I'm going to work with Justin to get higher-res pics posted.

Image Reposting

Image Reposting

Permission, attribution and a link back to the original

Re: When in doubt...

Who is online