Printable View
Number 5 says we can not post any copywrited material.
Question what makes a Pic copyrighted. Is it the url on the pic of course that is a copywrited pic but are not pics owned by but not labeled also to be banned?
Or can we post pics just as long as the URL or the website name not be shown.
Can we have a ruling on this please.
If it is the decision that such pics no longer be posted than I will abide by the decision. Just want it cleared up thank you.
Noe I guess it's a good question Mobius aksed here. What makes a picture copyrighted? Is there anyone out there who could answer this? I know I can copy any picture for my own private use, but may I post one here if I didn't take it myself? Any lawyers out there? And is there a difference of copyright-law in different countries?:confused:
copyright
<legal> The exclusive rights of the owner of the copyright on a work to make and distribute copies, prepare derivative works, and perform and display the work in public (these last two mainly apply to plays, films, dances and the like, but could also apply to software).
A work, including a piece of software, is under copyright by
default in most coutries, whether of not it displays a
copyright notice. However, a copyright notice may make it
easier to assert ownership. The copyright owner is the person
or company whose name appears in the copyright notice on the
box, or the disk or the screen or wherever.
A copyright notice has three parts. The first can be either a
c with a circle around it (LaTeX \copyright), or the word
Copyright or the abbreviation Copr. A "c" in parentheses:
"(c)" has no legal meaning. This is followed by the name of
the copyright holder and the year of first publication.
Countries around the world have agreed to recognise and uphold each others' copyrights, but this world-wide protection
requires the use of the c in a circle.
Originally, most of the computer industry assumed that only
the program's underlying instructions were protected under
copyright law but, beginning in the early 1980s, a series of
lawsuits involving the video screens of game programs extended
protections to the appearance of programs.
Use of copyright to restrict redistribution is actually
immoral, unethical, and illegitimate. It is a result of
brainwashing by monopolists and corporate interests and it
violates everyone's rights. Copyrights and patents hamper
technological progress by making a naturally abundant resource
scarce. Many, from communists to right wing libertarians, are
trying to abolish intellectual property myths.
I strongly disagree with this paragraph. If I write something or invent something I don't want some rip-off artist using my idea to line his pockets -- at least not without my permission. It is true that there have been some inordinately long copyright extensions in recent years as a result of corporate interests. Disney, in particular, freaked out at the prospect of losing control of the image of a certain M. Mouse. I support reducing the length of copyright protection in some cases. But if you make it difficult or impossible for artists and inventors to profit from their work, you will stifle creativity as surely as censorship does.Quote:
Originally posted by BDSM_Tourguide
copyright
Use of copyright to restrict redistribution is actually
immoral, unethical, and illegitimate. It is a result of
brainwashing by monopolists and corporate interests and it
violates everyone's rights. Copyrights and patents hamper
technological progress by making a naturally abundant resource
scarce. Many, from communists to right wing libertarians, are
trying to abolish intellectual property myths.
I went to a pre-opening screening of a new film recently, and the ushers searched my guest's handbag for a recording device -- that's how seriously Hollywood takes the rip-off artists who surreptitiously record new films and are selling pirate DVD's on the street before the film has been out a week.
GB
Quote:
Originally posted by boccaccio2000g
I strongly disagree with this paragraph. If I write something or invent something I don't want some rip-off artist using my idea to line his pockets -- at least not without my permission. It is true that there have been some inordinately long copyright extensions in recent years as a result of corporate interests. Disney, in particular, freaked out at the prospect of losing control of the image of a certain M. Mouse. I support reducing the length of copyright protection in some cases. But if you make it difficult or impossible for artists and inventors to profit from their work, you will stifle creativity as surely as censorship does.
I went to a pre-opening screening of a new film recently, and the ushers searched my guest's handbag for a recording device -- that's how seriously Hollywood takes the rip-off artists who surreptitiously record new films and are selling pirate DVD's on the street before the film has been out a week.
GB
I disagree with it, too. I don't want anyone profitting from my work, unless I am drawing a check from their benefit.
I don't know why a reference source would have such an opinionated paragraph inserted into their definition. I almost removed it because it really doesn't fit with the "reference" attitude of the rest of the legal definition, but I didn't want to cut out parts just because I didn't like what they said.
I think what the author was trying to instill in his opinion was that, if people would worry less about their money and more about a sense of co-operation, then science and society could progress forward more rapidly. I believe his opinionated paragraph was in reference to the earlier paragraph on technology and computers.
I certainly wouldn't want copyright laws to not protect works of art, literature, film or music, because a lot of artists put a lot of themselves and a lot of their energies and their imagination into bringing these forms of expression out of themselves. My wife, for instance, has spent the last couple of years writing a novel that she sincerely hopes to get published. She has released some of the chapters over the internet for readers and other authors to critique. That does not mean she wants someone to steal it, finish it in their own way and publish it out from under her. She just wants peoples' opinions on her work.
Although, I'm sure that 90% of the people here have some kind of file sharing client on their hard drives and use it daily to violate copyright laws and don't give it a second thought.
There is indeed a difference between stealing some product and its fair use, this is where copyright fails in my opinion
An example
In making my little smut films, here are potential problems
I certainly cant put on a music CD in teh background, even if I have bought the CD.
What about the clothing worn? if my jeans have a levis logo visible am I allowed to wear them in my film? what abotu the art on my walls? I have bought it all, but a poster maybe copyrighted, the shoes I am wearing? that the model wears?
what about if there is a call for drinking in the film? can we show the label on the bottle? what about a package of cigerttes
Do I have the right to use the products I have already paid for?
Ale
Quote:
Originally posted by alebeard42
There is indeed a difference between stealing some product and its fair use, this is where copyright fails in my opinion
An example
In making my little smut films, here are potential problems
I certainly cant put on a music CD in teh background, even if I have bought the CD.
What about the clothing worn? if my jeans have a levis logo visible am I allowed to wear them in my film? what abotu the art on my walls? I have bought it all, but a poster maybe copyrighted, the shoes I am wearing? that the model wears?
what about if there is a call for drinking in the film? can we show the label on the bottle? what about a package of cigerttes
Do I have the right to use the products I have already paid for?
Ale
You do, for the most part.
I know in American television, it is legal for one company to use another company's products for comparison without permission or payment. It's covered under the laws for competitive advertising. This practice, however, is not legal in Canada unless one company has contractually agreed to allow another company to use their poducts in its ads.
As for films, that is another story altogether. Product placement in films and television shows is advertising. Corporations pay mega bucks to get their products into films and on television. If someone in a movie drinks a Coke, you can bet your butt that The Coca-Cola Bottling Company or Coca-Cola Foods has paid the executive producer of the film at least a couple of hundred thousand dollars to get the can of Coke in that actor's hand.
It's not the makers of the films that pay to get products placed into the films, it is the companies represnted by the products that pay for it. Therefore, I doubt many companies would have issues with you showing their products in your films. If it gets people to smoke Marlboros or drink Coke, they're all for it, usually
Ot is generally true that product placement is something companies like
however, in the case of adult film, or a piece of work that maybe political, religious or socially at odds with a corporations ideas, there can be a conflict
In other words, can I take a photo of a woman nude except for a Jean jacket and legally sell the photo without paying or gaining permission from the jacket maker?
Continuing the highjacking of this thread :)
The problem here is that a lot of what you are talking about has to do with trademark issues and not copyright.
For example "BDSM Library" is not copyrightable however it might be able to be trademarked. "Levis" is a trademark not a copyright. Mickey Mouse is a trademark, but his image is copyrighted.
A good place to start to learn about these issues is here for copyrights:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
and here for trademarks
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/
I know these are US laws and there will be differences with other countries laws, however we are on a US web server so these laws apply to material posted here.
I hope this will also help keep anyone from being falsely accused of breaking copyright laws which is a crime called libel when done in a public forum like the one we have here.
Besides, not only is it interesting reading, as authors it is information everyone should know anyway.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ironwulf
Continuing the highjacking of this thread :)
Already a step ahead of you, Ironwulf. I just had to wait for the wife to get finished with the computer before I could split the thread into its on-topic and its hijacked, copyright-discussing elements.
All taken care of now and in the right forum to boot.
Ta now. :)
Well, Alebeard, you surely can use music in the background of your films as long as you pay for it and as long as you credit the authors at the end of your film. Over here in Germany there is a company (called GEMA) that collects tributes from disco-owners, pub-owners and any others that play music in public. These tolls are then devided and given to those who made the songs. (It's pretty expensive by the way.)
But that's not the same as publishing pictures or things on the net. I guess I would be offended to find any of my pitures somewhere else than I've originally posted them. Normally you post pictures without getting money for them. But I simply don't want them to appear somewhere else. I can always easily make the publisher delete them, but why should I surf the net just to look for my own pictures?
Ale, that's an interesting related topic, but it doesn't involve "intellectual property". Your films and photo shoots would come under the category of "intellectual property"; you certainly don't want people to appropriate them without your permission, do you?Quote:
Originally posted by alebeard42
There is indeed a difference between stealing some product and its fair use, this is where copyright fails in my opinion
what about a package of cigerttes
Do I have the right to use the products I have already paid for?
Ale
The trademark issue shares some of the same concerns; I doubt that companies go to great lengths to protect against the incidental use of their product -- we've all seen automobiles, scenes of the Las Vegas strip, and so forth in porno films. But if you were to emphasize the product (by repeatedly zooming in on a clothing logo, for example, or a soft drink, or a brand of cigarettes, you could run into problems. Companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to craft a certain image for their products; not hard to understand why they would want to protect it from association with the likes of us. ;-)
As far as the music goes -- that is intellectual property. You can use it, but you have to pay royalties. Have you heard waiters/waitresses sing the traditional "Happy Birthday to you" song in restaurants lately? I haven't -- because a while back the holders of the copyright on that song began demanding royalties on its use. So if you take someone out to a restaurant that is part of a national chain and tip off the staff that it's your guest's birthday, the staff typically will serenade you with some home-made birthday greetings. (I believe that the waiters/waitresses are apparently permitted to join in if someone at the table begins the traditional song.)
Boccaccio
So what's the conclusion? What can we post on these forums?
Quote:
Originally posted by Glibc
So what's the conclusion? What can we post on these forums?
Read the Code of Conduct. What you can post is there.
While you're there, notice the New Member Introduction thread, too. Tell us about yourself.
Right, OK, so we can't post copyrighted material. But this discussion is also about just what that is. Is it OK to post pictures without (c) on them? Probably not, but I really don't want to break any rules, so I'm asking for clarification.Quote:
Originally posted by BDSM_Tourguide
Read the Code of Conduct. What you can post is there.
The simple question is." Can we post a pic in the favorite pic as long as the URL and the Site are not shown. Simple question. IF the answer is No, then fine. But first put the legalize away "shoot the Lawers"
Alebeard simple question you took the pic you own the copyright.
question is there a form that you fill out and send to the copyright police or is it just becouse you took the pic it is legaly your copy right?
For now, you may post any picture without the copyright © logo present.
DO NOT just remove a copyright logo from a picture and post it. It's still copyrighted, even though you removed the tag.
And absolutely do not post ANYTHING from Insex.com
All pictures are copyrighted the moment they are taken in modern copyright law, they may never have a © attached to it but that doesnt make it any less copyrighted. As to not stating the URL and name of the site, this is a sure way to leave youself wide open for the breaking of a copyright.
Linking directly to the image is probably your best bet along with posting of the name of the site that posted the source picture you are using, assuming that the picture is a publicly posted image and not one requiring permission to view.
Of course there may be many pictures that the copyright holder has released into the public domain and getting permission to use it is not needed. However, since you do not know that for sure you can not count on that unless you contact the copyright holder to confirm it. Something that will prove to be difficult at best.
Bottomline is that unless you took the picture yourself and therefore are the copyright holder or you have received permission to post a copyrighted image by the copyright holder, you really should not be posting them at all.
Having said that, I think its safe to say no one will stop from downloading pictures, stories, or any other files they want and with the Internet being as it is I am sure they will have no problems continuing to use them in anyway they please whether they have been released into the public domain or not.
There are lots of copyrighted pictures in these forums. Even some from Insex.
I'd still like a clear statement from the moderators about this. Can we post a picture when we "think it's OK"? Will the moderators comb through all messages and remove anything not completely legal?
Example: pictures that have been posted millions of times in newgroups by a robot.
Example: pictures that are clearly meant as ads for websites.
Example: pictures with no information available at all.
Example: pictures posted to get information about them.
There are no 'public domain' photos. Everything is copyrighted. I go after people for copyright infringement almost on a daily basis, and probably 1/3 of the sites are chat forums like this. IF someone asked if they could use a photo with a link to one of my sites, I'd gladly say yes, but no one ever does, they just steal a photo from the members' area then repost it for everyone to look at - then it ends up on 20 TGPs within 24 hours and I end up having to file 20 DMCA notices.
Most webmasters I talk to say they don't mind if their photos are reposted with the URL on them.
Nothing pisses me off more than when someone removes my copyright notice/URL from a photo.
If your looking for public domain photos this is just one of many places you can find them.
http://gimp-savvy.com/PHOTO-ARCHIVE/
Here is another one to help get you started on your public domain photo collections
http://pdphoto.org/