Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mr_Piddlez wrote:
Most websites take claim of a photo once it is posted to them to use for their purposes whenever they choose.

They absolutely do *not*, because automatic ownership means that they instantly lose their "safe harbor" privileges. The site would instantly become legally responsible (and liable) for the bad as well as the good.

All it would take is a single upload of potential child pr0n image, and the owners could (and would) be held legally (criminally) accountable.

It doesn't even have to be child pr0n. One could legally upload Nazi imagery in the US, then notify French / German authorities, and have them go after the site owners in full accordance with European law.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't mean to condone this behaviour in the slightest, but it's remarkable how ignorant people can be about copyrights and so on.

Even if they're not paying their contributors, basic guidelines or oversight is a very reasonable expectation. There has been no "sorry guys, we'll work on this", they delete their tracks and move on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bottle wrote:
Beautiful image of your BFG fleet. I'm glad they took it down according to your wishes too.

Thanks


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Mr_Piddlez wrote:
Most websites take claim of a photo once it is posted to them to use for their purposes whenever they choose.

They absolutely do *not*, because automatic ownership means that they instantly lose their "safe harbor" privileges. The site would instantly become legally responsible (and liable) for the bad as well as the good.

All it would take is a single upload of potential child pr0n image, and the owners could (and would) be held legally (criminally) accountable.

It doesn't even have to be child pr0n. One could legally upload Nazi imagery in the US, then notify French / German authorities, and have them go after the site owners in full accordance with European law.

They obviously see enough editorial potential to take images, rename/resize and host'm on their end. This is like the fat jew trying to say painstakingly removing watermarks is some kind of accident or misunderstanding, it's akin to saying "the chocolate bars must have fell into my pocket officer".

I'll just say, objectively speaking, does it look good to delete comments and cover their tracks when they try and mask others content as their own and get caught? I predicted they'd delete comments from the outset and they did not disappoint.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
One could legally upload Nazi imagery in the US, then notify French / German authorities, and have them go after the site owners in full accordance with European law.

If the site is hosted in the Germany then they could get problems with Nazi images (it depends on what is going on) but the actual servers need to be hosted here. German Law usually doesn't apply outside of Germany (and the same goes for the US laws in the US).

Also all the safe harbour/DMCA stuff is region dependent. DMCA, for example, works on servers/content that's hosted in the US but nowhere else (because the actual law exist only in the US).

Sure, although a zealous prosecutor often works on the basis of accessible locally gives legal jurisdiction.

Was your image copyrighted? If not and posed online, I'd say you are sol. Since when are public images found on google subject of copyright?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Was your image copyrighted? If not and posed online, I'd say you are sol. Since when are public images found on google subject of copyright?

The creator is automatically granted copyright in the USA, so yes, his image was copyrighted. Here on Dakka when you upload an image to the gallery, you are specifically asked about this. The only images on Google that are not subject to copyright are those that are in the Public Domain. Under Search tools you will see the term 'Usage Rights' for images. This wil tell you what you can and cannot do with an image. BoLS ignored the fact that the OP's photo was not for reuse of any sort. He's not SOL. BoLS violated his copyright-- surely the people at BoLS should know how to check for usage rights, and he rightfully issued a DMCA. That his commentary was deleted seems in character for the site.

Never went to Bols. It's a boring site.

Remind me never to use your images again except for fair use parody like the fresh prince of Canada! I think you should start a ridiculous rumor (Khorne will be rebranded to Kharned Khorne!) elsewhere on the internet and "confirm" it with a sock puppet account at a second location. They'll invariably pick it up, republish it, and look silly. Revenge!

 warboss wrote:
Remind me never to use your images again except for fair use parody like the fresh prince of Canada! I think you should start a ridiculous rumor (Khorne will be rebranded to Kharned Khorne!) elsewhere on the internet and "confirm" it with a sock puppet account at a second location. They'll invariably pick it up, republish it, and look silly. Revenge!

That fresh prince pic was hilarious

I once found a site hotlinking off of my blog. Thats way easier to deal with as I just changed the picture to something truly disturbing.

They were very sorry when it started showing up on their front page.

Ah yes here is his apology letter to his readers

http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/a-public-apology-from-the-cavalry-saber-editor-1705056/1/20

Happened to me on this very site, I posted a pic on my Facebook and imagine my surprise when it ended up here on dakka and then other sites, with not a bit of thanks for it, didn't bother me too much other than wondering how they got my private picture from Facebook.

 Red Harvest wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Was your image copyrighted? If not and posed online, I'd say you are sol. Since when are public images found on google subject of copyright?

The creator is automatically granted copyright in the USA, so yes, his image was copyrighted. Here on Dakka when you upload an image to the gallery, you are specifically asked about this. The only images on Google that are not subject to copyright are those that are in the Public Domain. Under Search tools you will see the term 'Usage Rights' for images. This wil tell you what you can and cannot do with an image. BoLS ignored the fact that the OP's photo was not for reuse of any sort. He's not SOL. BoLS violated his copyright-- surely the people at BoLS should know how to check for usage rights, and he rightfully issued a DMCA. That his commentary was deleted seems in character for the site.

The creator is automatically granted copyright everywhere that the Berne Convention is part of local law. This means everywhere except places like China and North Korea.

Due to the special nature of the online world, there being so much unidentified material available, including stuff that possibly is in the public domain, there is a procedure that picture editors are expected to follow in using images for which they cannot identify the copyright holder.

In this case it would have been easy to trace the copyright holder through their page from which the picture was copied.

 R3con wrote:
I once found a site hotlinking off of my blog. Thats way easier to deal with as I just changed the picture to something truly disturbing.

They were very sorry when it started showing up on their front page.

Ah yes here is his apology letter to his readers

http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/a-public-apology-from-the-cavalry-saber-editor-1705056/1/20

It's a shame his take-home from that was "I should have hosted the copy myself instead of hotlinking" and not "I shouldn't have stolen the image".

Kind of a related issue here, 1d4 chan used an image of my piece of crap dreadnaught on their "THIN YOUR PAINTS" page. Here is the image: http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/679476-Librarian%20Dreadnaught%202.html?m=2

I don't mind it (I want more people to see my work, even though it may be crap), but I'm wondering if any of you guys could tell me who did it so I could thank them or something. Thanks in advance.

 R3con wrote:
I once found a site hotlinking off of my blog. Thats way easier to deal with as I just changed the picture to something truly disturbing.

They were very sorry when it started showing up on their front page.

Ah yes here is his apology letter to his readers

http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/a-public-apology-from-the-cavalry-saber-editor-1705056/1/20

Goatse?

 Azazelx wrote:

 R3con wrote:
I once found a site hotlinking off of my blog. Thats way easier to deal with as I just changed the picture to something truly disturbing.

They were very sorry when it started showing up on their front page.

Ah yes here is his apology letter to his readers

http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/a-public-apology-from-the-cavalry-saber-editor-1705056/1/20

Goatse?

I wish I didn't know what that means...

Don't we all?

 Crablezworth wrote:
I'm just happy that it has been dealt with, hopefully it's a rare thing.

Define "rare?"

http://freewargamesrules.wikia.com/wiki/Battlefleet_Gothic

http://warpartifacts.blogspot.com/2013/11/an-open-letter-to-games-workshop-10.html

http://v7.aeriesguard.com/var/crypte/storage/images/media/images/battlefleet-gothic/2076805-1-fre-FR/Battlefleet-Gothic.jpg
Somebody is actually hosting it here.

https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/the-all-in-one-warhammer-40k-and-40k-rpg-thread-2-0.307265/page-143

http://warhammergarai.forumactif.com/t1074-bip-bip-click-strimkch-scanner-auspex-active

http://assemble.forum2jeux.com/t277-battlefleet-gothic

http://vk.com/wall-79288115_3668

http://www.gpforums.co.nz/threads/499451-Massive-ship-RTS-Battlefleet-Gothic-Armada-unveiled

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=318544

http://drosswraith.tumblr.com/

https://psycomedia.wordpress.com/

http://imgarcade.com/1/space-battleships-and-battlecruisers/

Plus a bunch of Russian sites that I can't get to while at work.



Better get that DMCA machine fired up. If you're gonna go after BoLS, then you better go after the others, too. Else, it almost looks like you simply have an axe to grind with BoLS and want to publicly draw negative attention to them.



Ghidorah

 Ghidorah wrote:
If you're gonna go after BoLS, then you better go after the others, too. Else, it almost looks like you simply have an axe to grind with BoLS and want to publicly draw negative attention to them.



Ghidorah

Tu quoque all you want chief

Wikipedia wrote:Tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false

To my knowledge, I never asserted any inconsistencies in the truth of your claims. Nor did I ever say that your claims were false. I was just saying that many other website and forums were using that same image that you're claiming ownership of and copyrights to. What I did was question why you went after BoLS and none of the other copyright infringing parties. A fair and unbiased question, in my opinion.

A very nice-looking fleet, by the way. I would love to put my Chaos on a table with them.

As for the pic you just replied with, am I to assume that it's directed that me? As if to sarcastically insinuate that I think I'm some sort of badass? Hmm... the inference of that pic in relation to me almost seems like an "...informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument ..." That sounds vaguely familiar for some reason. Vaguely.

*scratches two heads and a chin*


Ghidorah

Hmmm.
I may have to look harder at how I do things.
I do tend to hot-link stuff on the net to images I want to share.
I figured if it is a link, it is obvious who it is from (rather than me download it).
Well, I make it pretty clear in my gallery otherwise.

Speaking of that image you posted, that one from http://www.orgoglionerd.it/assets/thumbs/media-4997-w400-c0x0x29x102-q100.jpg?
Is that your website? Do you own the copyright on that image, too, or did you happen to hotlink to it? I don't seen any credit given to the creator.

From a whois search, it appears that that website is registered to one Jacopo Peretti Cucchi in Novara, Italy. Looks like you're in Ottowa, Canada, according to DakkDakka.

Hmmm... interesting.
What was that bit about hypocrisy again?


Ghidorah

 Ghidorah wrote:
Speaking of that image you posted, that one from http://www.orgoglionerd.it/assets/thumbs/media-4997-w400-c0x0x29x102-q100.jpg?
Is that your website? Do you own the copyright on that image, too, or did you happen to hotlink to it? I don't seen any credit given to the creator.

From a whois search, it appears that that website is registered to one Jacopo Peretti Cucchi in Novara, Italy. Looks like you're in Ottowa, Canada, according to DakkDakka.

Hmmm... interesting.
What was that bit about hypocrisy again?


Ghidorah

That's an internet meme. By it's very nature, it's meant to be shared widely. You pointing out the hosting of that image on an Italian website in no way verifies or grants ownership of either the meme image or the ownership of the movie still from which it derives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:
Hmmm.
I may have to look harder at how I do things.
I do tend to hot-link stuff on the net to images I want to share.
I figured if it is a link, it is obvious who it is from (rather than me download it).
Well, I make it pretty clear in my gallery otherwise.

What I've started to do on my blog is to link the URL of the site below the image I'm hotlinking to give proper credit to the original poster (or at least the source that I at least found). I recently did some a tau conversion and posted two pics of other conversions that inspired me. I don't know if that's enough but it at least shows an effort to credit the previous source.

Crablezworth, would something like that have been enough for you personally?

Just remember when you post to google and Facebook you give permissin and ownership of the photos, that is another reason i dont do facebook.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/social-media/9780565/Facebook-terms-and-conditions-why-you-dont-own-your-online-life.html

 col. krazy kenny wrote:
Just remember when you post to google and Facebook you give permissin and ownership of the photos, that is another reason i dont do facebook.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/social-media/9780565/Facebook-terms-and-conditions-why-you-dont-own-your-online-life.html

Are you talking about google+ or google in general? You have a link to blogspot which is owned by google as well.

edit: You linked an article after I initially read the post while I was looking around the web for info. I'll go read that.

 Talizvar wrote:
Hmmm.
I may have to look harder at how I do things.
I do tend to hot-link stuff on the net to images I want to share.
I figured if it is a link, it is obvious who it is from (rather than me download it).
Well, I make it pretty clear in my gallery otherwise.

I don't blog or anything silly like that so it isn't a big problem for me, but even on forums I hotlink the image itself and then also include a link to the page I found it on.

I'm not sure where I stand as far as copyright is concerned doing that, but it makes me feel comfortable because instead of saying "Hey look, here's an awesome picture", it's more like "Hey look over there, that website has an awesome picture". I'm not wizz bang internet expert, but I believe the site owner can check their traffic and see whether page views are coming from my link and if they want they can confront me about it easily.

I think it's a good idea to send notifications to people who are using your images without your permission. Even if you personally don't care, I think it's better to foster an environment where people ask before they take and redistribute media that someone be staking their livelihood on.

 Azazelx wrote:

 R3con wrote:
I once found a site hotlinking off of my blog. Thats way easier to deal with as I just changed the picture to something truly disturbing.

They were very sorry when it started showing up on their front page.

Ah yes here is his apology letter to his readers

http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/a-public-apology-from-the-cavalry-saber-editor-1705056/1/20

Goatse?

I used to have one of those "please stop stealing my bandwidth" automatic images set up under my hosting, except my host allowed personalisation.I changed it to a picture of Bert from Sesame Street where someone had cut a hole in the image and replaced his nose with another part of their anatomy.

Oddly enough people stopped directly hot linking to my illustrations after that, and my billing dropped. Good times.

 warboss wrote:
Crablezworth, would something like that have been enough for you personally?

My preference is that the image at the very least link back to the source. Even putting the gallery link that it's from is usually fine. The issue in this case is individuals stealing the image and hosting somewhere else.

I'm generally of the opinion that proliferation of my images is for the most part positive, but as someone who has always been dead set against watermarking it stings when no attempt is made link/credit. if it's not linking back or at least giving someone enough information to go on, like even an alias/username it's certainly only helping put clicks on someone else's site and if monetized food on other tables than my own.

 warboss wrote:
[That's an internet meme. By it's very nature, it's meant to be shared widely. You pointing out the hosting of that image on an Italian website in no way verifies or grants ownership of either the meme image or the ownership of the movie still from which it derives.

And? Are you saying that a meme is not protected by copyright law? That legal ownership and the rights thereof, do not extend to memes on the grounds that they are "meant to be shared widely?" I'm going to need some legal source to back that claim up. You're completely out of touch with this conversation and in over your head. I think you're just trying to hop in and try to fan some flames.

This whole thread is about BoLS posting a picture of his and not posting the credit due to the copyright owner. Which is exactly what he did. Difference is, he meant it to be insulting and smart-assed to another posted because he disagreed with what they said. In the process, he did precisely what he accused me of, thus being hypocritical. Inception hypocrisy.

Before you try to raise an argument against me while using my words to do so, please be sure to read what I said first. Then attempt to understand my words. You clearly did not do the latter. Nowhere did I say that the registration of the domain verified or granted ownership of the image. I asked if he hotlinked the image. I merely pointed out to whom and where, geographically, the domain was registered to and inferred that, based on his geographic location, he was not the domain owner.


Your entire reply to me was a waste of time and only served to unnecessarily fan embers into flames. This is the part where I tell you to practice RULE #1 and move along.


Ghidorah

Edit for rule #1.

NOTE: RULE #1 IS NOT OPTIONAL.