copyright and watermarks

gracilis

Dec 10, 2010 - permalink

"Any pictures with copyright/ownership watermarks must be deleted."

Just so you're not under any illusions about this, this is, uh, a nice gesture, but doesn't exactly make everything on the up-and-up.

When you redistribute a photo without permission, you risk a lawsuit from the owner of a photograph seeking damages from lost income and/or a court order to stop distribution.

This is true whether or not there are watermarks.

Yes, many of our favourite photographers do post their images with watermarks or labels, but they don't need to in order to retain their copyright. In the US, and other countries which follow the Berne convention (which is to say, just about everybody), you need to assume that the owner is reserving their copy-rights unless you have been explicitly told otherwise.

So really, the only legal way to run a site like GWM is, for every photo, require a record of how you have permission to upload that photo. There'd be basically three cases:

1) You took the photo yourself.

2) You have explicit permission from the owner of the photo to post it here. (Like Andy gets over at AMG.)

3) The photo has been explicitly made available under terms that allow redistribution, such as a Creative Commons license. (See, for instance, Flickr, where some photos say "all rights reserved" and others say "some rights reserved".)

...

now I'm not saying you gotta do it that way, but I do want to be sure that everyone who uploads is making an informed choice about their actions. These are the rights that photographers expect to have when they put together these awesome photo shoots. If they want you to redistribute the photo, they'll tell you; I think every professional photographer knows what "Creative Commons" is by now. Yes, you can upload their work anyway, but don't assume the photographer is going to be happy about it, even if they didn't watermark the image.

Source: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

&quot;Any pictures with copyright/ownership watermarks must be deleted.&quot; Just so you&#039;re not under any illusions about this, this is, uh, a nice gesture, but doesn&#039;t exactly make everything on the up-and-up. When you redistribute a photo without permission, you risk a lawsuit from the owner of a photograph seeking damages from lost income and/or a court order to stop distribution. This is true whether or not there are watermarks. Yes, many of our favourite photographers do post their images with watermarks or labels, but they don&#039;t need to in order to retain their copyright. &nbsp;In the US, and other countries which follow the Berne convention (which is to say, just about everybody), you need to assume that the owner is reserving their copy-rights unless you have been explicitly told otherwise. So really, the only legal way to run a site like GWM is, for every photo, require a record of how you have permission to upload that photo. &nbsp;There&#039;d be basically three cases: 1) You took the photo yourself. 2) You have explicit permission from the owner of the photo to post it here. &nbsp;(Like Andy gets over at AMG.) 3) The photo has been explicitly made available under terms that allow redistribution, such as a Creative Commons license. &nbsp;(See, for instance, Flickr, where some photos say &quot;all rights reserved&quot; and others say &quot;some rights reserved&quot;.) ... now I&#039;m not saying you gotta do it that way, but I do want to be sure that everyone who uploads is making an informed choice about their actions. &nbsp;These are the rights that photographers expect to have when they put together these awesome photo shoots. &nbsp;If they want you to redistribute the photo, they&#039;ll tell you; I think every professional photographer knows what &quot;Creative Commons&quot; is by now. &nbsp;Yes, you can upload their work anyway, but don&#039;t assume the photographer is going to be happy about it, even if they didn&#039;t watermark the image. Source: <a href="http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html</a>

blotter

Dec 11, 2010 - permalink

This is not the case because legal battles with sites like youtube[1] show us that in sites with user generated content, the content owners have to notify the owner of the specific infringing content, and then the content owner must take it down, assuming the claim is legitimate. it is not illegal for GWM to host copyrighted content that has been uploaded by its users, it is illegal for them to not take it down after being notified by the content owners.

now, in practice, since i'm sure GWM doesn't have the same lawyers as google, they won't be able to provide an adequate defense against for-profit websites if they get sued, so GWM can get bullied in the court of law by content owners even though legal precedent shows they are doing no wrong, assuming GWM isn't uploading copyrighted content themselves and they are complying with takedown notices.

assuming this copyright check is voluntary, it seems like GWM is going above and beyond their duties as a website built on user generated content to check for copyrighted material. again, assuming they are doing the other right things, like complying with takedown notices from content owners, and not posting copyrighted content themselves.

[1] http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-06-23-google-viacom-copyright-lawsuit_N.htm

wide_stance

Dec 12, 2010 - permalink

This is not the case because legal battles with sites like youtube[1] show us that in sites with user generated content, the content owners have to notify the owner of the specific infringing content, and then the content owner must take it down, assuming the claim is legitimate. it is not illegal for GWM to host copyrighted content that has been uploaded by its users, it is illegal for them to not take it down after being notified by the content owners.

now, in practice, since i'm sure GWM doesn't have the same lawyers as google, they won't be able to provide an adequate defense against for-profit websites if they get sued, so GWM can get bullied in the court of law by content owners even though legal precedent shows they are doing no wrong, assuming GWM isn't uploading copyrighted content themselves and they are complying with takedown notices.

assuming this copyright check is voluntary, it seems like GWM is going above and beyond their duties as a website built on user generated content to check for copyrighted material. again, assuming they are doing the other right things, like complying with takedown notices from content owners, and not posting copyrighted content themselves.

[1] http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-06-23-google-viacom-copyright-lawsuit_N.htm

In the legal/litigation world, going "above and beyond" makes you a BIGGER target.

Who is a lawyer more likely to go after?
The fearless, balls-out pirate who proudly admits he's hosting pictures and videos and YOU can't stop him, AND he's gonna make you pay for it (saradas, for example)?
Or the guy who jumps at the chance to take copyrighted material down, scolds users for doing so, and offers their site up on only ads and willful donations?

More often than you think, the latter. They've proven easy to bully, easy to convince that the law is not on their side, and have pre-emptively done what was asked of them. Either they don't KNOW the law, or they know they're breaking it (or don't know they aren't.)

I'm not saying being a care-free pirating jerkoff is the best course of action, but if a campaign to remove Copyrighted pictures off the site without provocation is THIS huge, it's just telling whoevers legal team that "I'm a pushover!"

<div class="quoteheader"><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">This is not the case because legal battles with sites like youtube[1] show us that in sites with user generated content, the content owners have to notify the owner of the specific infringing content, and then the content owner must take it down, assuming the claim is legitimate. it is not illegal for GWM to host copyrighted content that has been uploaded by its users, it is illegal for them to not take it down after being notified by the content owners. now, in practice, since i&#039;m sure GWM doesn&#039;t have the same lawyers as google, they won&#039;t be able to provide an adequate defense against for-profit websites if they get sued, so GWM can get bullied in the court of law by content owners even though legal precedent shows they are doing no wrong, assuming GWM isn&#039;t uploading copyrighted content themselves and they are complying with takedown notices. assuming this copyright check is voluntary, it seems like GWM is going above and beyond their duties as a website built on user generated content to check for copyrighted material. again, assuming they are doing the other right things, like complying with takedown notices from content owners, and not posting copyrighted content themselves. [1] <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-06-23-google-viacom-copyright-lawsuit_N.htm" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-06-23-google-viacom-copyright-lawsuit_N.htm</a> </blockquote></div>In the legal/litigation world, going &quot;above and beyond&quot; makes you a BIGGER target. Who is a lawyer more likely to go after? The fearless, balls-out pirate who proudly admits he&#039;s hosting pictures and videos and YOU can&#039;t stop him, AND he&#039;s gonna make you pay for it (saradas, for example)? Or the guy who jumps at the chance to take copyrighted material down, scolds users for doing so, and offers their site up on only ads and willful donations? More often than you think, the latter. They&#039;ve proven easy to bully, easy to convince that the law is not on their side, and have pre-emptively done what was asked of them. Either they don&#039;t KNOW the law, or they know they&#039;re breaking it (or don&#039;t know they aren&#039;t.) I&#039;m not saying being a care-free pirating jerkoff is the best course of action, but if a campaign to remove Copyrighted pictures off the site without provocation is THIS huge, it&#039;s just telling whoevers legal team that &quot;I&#039;m a pushover!&quot;

chief ouray

Dec 13, 2010 - permalink

Seems to me that those who have posted the offending material should be required to take it down. Why should every other law abiding member of this site be penalized because some aren't smart enough to read the upload policies? I can name some who have put up a lot of copyrighted pix and not one word was said to them by staff.

gromitcatcher

Dec 13, 2010 - permalink

isn't every picture on this website copywrite in some way?

wide_stance

Dec 14, 2010 - permalink

isn't every picture on this website copywrite in some way?

Pretty much. Plus since it's not a for-pay site, a lot of these fall under fair use, since it's not the entire set being posted. Of course, I don't think Chainer has the legal team to fight back to the point where he could argue that.

sepitheman

Dec 14, 2010 - permalink

Imo i would ban allthose pics with young girls. Imean 9-15 Years old. i feel so akward , when iam whaching pics and see those little girls, who are posting those pics? Stop that.

wihs2006

Dec 15, 2010 - permalink

Imo i would ban allthose pics with young girls. Imean 9-15 Years old. i feel so akward , when iam whaching pics and see those little girls, who are posting those pics? Stop that.

Agreed 100%, it's highly disturbing. Especially the ones of the 10 year old gymnasts and the 12 year old girls at the beach. I think we should have a "no pictures of girls younger then 16/17 years old" rule.

miked

Dec 15, 2010 - permalink

We have filed a complaint to http://www.fbi.gov/innocent.htm?gid=305 seeking to have this site shut-down.

And we're also in contact with your hosting company and uploaders' as well as all the viewers' IP addresses will be reported to the proper authorities such as the FBI and Interpol. With this information, these two agencies will be able to find and arrest the user in regard to the above-mentioned abuse.

M.Dandar

wide_stance

Dec 15, 2010 - permalink

We have filed a complaint to http://www.fbi.gov/innocent.htm?gid=305 seeking to have this site shut-down.

And we're also in contact with your hosting company and uploaders' as well as all the viewers' IP addresses will be reported to the proper authorities such as the FBI and Interpol. With this information, these two agencies will be able to find and arrest the user in regard to the above-mentioned abuse.

M.Dandar

Sup Saradas.

Chainer★

Dec 15, 2010 - permalink

We have filed a complaint to http://www.fbi.gov/innocent.htm?gid=305 seeking to have this site shut-down.

And we're also in contact with your hosting company and uploaders' as well as all the viewers' IP addresses will be reported to the proper authorities such as the FBI and Interpol. With this information, these two agencies will be able to find and arrest the user in regard to the above-mentioned abuse.

M.Dandar

o.0

wihs2006

Dec 16, 2010 - permalink

I believe he is just referring to the posters who post pictures of 12 year old girls.

kymera_gr7

Dec 16, 2010 - permalink

hey chainer, i kinda dropped the ball. i sorta clicked on keep picture on a few of them and right before the page refreshed noticed a small tidy lil watermark on some of them. sorry :( i'll stop moderating images now lol

kymera_gr7

Dec 16, 2010 - permalink

We have filed a complaint to http://www.fbi.gov/innocent.htm?gid=305 seeking to have this site shut-down.

And we're also in contact with your hosting company and uploaders' as well as all the viewers' IP addresses will be reported to the proper authorities such as the FBI and Interpol. With this information, these two agencies will be able to find and arrest the user in regard to the above-mentioned abuse.

M.Dandar

oh yea, funny thing is, my old man is a consultant at the NSA for interpol. i'll make sure none of that happens. baha.

wide_stance

Dec 16, 2010 - permalink

oh yea, funny thing is, my old man is a consultant at the NSA for interpol. i'll make sure none of that happens. baha.

Plus I'm sure they take false reports very seriously.

kymera_gr7

Dec 16, 2010 - permalink

you think lying to the cops is serious, lie to the government. lol funny thing is though interpol IS a very important organization as far as logistics go (i mean they keep a lot of records on international criminals and they do some investigating) but they really cant do shit to anyone. they're the equivalent of a hall monitor. lmfaoooo

Chainer★

Dec 16, 2010 - permalink

It's also against the rules, and anyone getting caught doing it will get banned.

atombender

Dec 18, 2010 - permalink

Option to only search image descriptions (and not file names or image comments) when searching

This should be the only option. It's really annoying to search for Person X and then getting 10 unrelated pictures with comments like "nice but I like Person X more" or "she reminds me of Person X".

bob7708

Dec 21, 2010 - permalink

I've seen other websites that post pictures with copyright labels and watermarking labels and it doesn't seem to effect their operations. Why is all the heat coming down on this website?
Anybody caught posting pictures of children should be banned immediately.

liftmedk

Jun 26, 2011 - permalink

We really try the best to get rid of the pictures that are copyrighted and cropped. But this is a huge website.
I tried to search for alexandra vieira (on th main site) and found nothing. Could you give me a link?

Personally I can say, that if you report pictures to be copyrighted I deal with it - either deleting it and giving the person who uploaded it a warning (sometimes a ban)

/Hum