AUP copyright inconsistancy ? (50)

Its a well known one of me using Tainted as a bicycle stand. She has used it as her main pic many times.

Whilst he has taken it down on demand, he was not gracious about it, effectively claiming (as a lawyer ) amongst other meandering excuses, that he did not have to do so as the AUP grants the site a licence to display uploaded images , therefore he is not breaching copyright as it is displayed upon the site to which I have granted a licence to display it..

Whilst I feel he is talking out of his arse, the AUP might be read to implicitly infer that a IC (as an entity) has the right to display any picture even on another persons profile.

Ergo is displaying a picture off of IC on IC (just in a different profile) a legal copyright breech?

I accept that the declaration upon uploading confirming ownership kind of gets around this, but that is more IC protecting itself rather than the copyright holder.

Is this indeed a possible licensing loophole from viewpoint of claiming usage right fees from the perp.

Thoughts?

- Wulfy

*edited i hope, for clarity

My, what sharp teeth I have.

Edited Mon 17 May 10, 4:05 PM by BadWulf

As images are only ever displayed as part of a web page they should be given their own bit in the copyright notice, eg "You grant IC permission to display your uploaded images as part of a web page."

Why don't cash machines have a Gamble button?
Why isn't there an age of consent for religion?

I have since been informed, that as long as an image can be found on the internet by using a search engine, such as google, then that said image is available for any member of the public to use, and there is no copywrite to be broken, as its freely available through the internet.

I am currently, slowly , looking into this, and if true, I will be writing to admin here and letting them know, and also putting the photo back up.

I think you have fallen foul of this too, and if as you say this person is a lawer or solicitor, I would imagine he is correct, he certainly seems to have said what I've also been told.

The nice thing though, is that he is within the community, and took the photo down when asked

That is a bit like saying: because people leave cars lying around in the street you can help yourself. Ownership does not pass to someone else because an item is nicked. You cannot pass on title of goods you do not own. The copyright holder retains the copyright until they assign it elsewhere, or have been dead for quite a long time.

Read the section entitled Is material on the internet protected by copyright?.

It isn't true. Never has been. Anyone who tells you otherwise is talking shit. Admin is correct and you are not. You stole someone else's work.

Why don't cash machines have a Gamble button?
Why isn't there an age of consent for religion?

Jesus Christ, how seriously do some of you guys take putting other people's work up on here? If it's not yours I don't see why you're so attached to it, and if you're not attached to it I don't see why you dedicate such time and effort to justifying your decision to upload.

You got a picture deleted. It's not the end of the world, so get a grip.

Scroll down to the 20s and then further down for image related copyright law.

It SEEMS to say that regardless of whether you can find it through simple internet search, the copyright resides with the creator of the work, in the same way as a reference text or ebook would retain copyright-just because you can find the information easily, doesn't mean you can steal it and claim it's yours!

Two roads diverged in a wood and I, I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference. (R. Frost)
Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new (A. Einstein)
To be wronged is nothing unless you continue to remember it. ~Confucius

Right on!

But the (as nearly as possible) definitive site on copyright in the UK is the government Intellectual Property Office website.

And on the initial question, if someone else puts your image on their page without your permission, they are in breach of copyright. There's nothing in the AUP that means that you've given up your rights in the image by publishing it on IC.

'Twosies beats onesies, but nothing beats three...'

Edited 17 May 10, 4:47 PM by rodm99

Any person publishing an image without the permission of the copyright holder is liable to be prosecuted for damages, as is any web site owner that does not speedily remove said image when notified of the illegal publication.

If IC was claiming the right to allow anyone to use images I have placed on this site, solely for my use, then I would immediately require that they be removed.

I never assign any public domain publication rights to any organisation for any of my work.

Please bear in mind that if you don't own the rights to an image then to post it on here is not only a breach of copyright but also an act that can threaten the very existence of this site.

=============================== www.AegeanSoft.com Fetish Web Site Designers www.soundpunishment.com ===============================

Head<-->desk.

This *might* a very garbled and bewildered version of the very controversial 'orphaned works' legislation which is being considered in America: I doubt if there are more than two lawyers in the US who fully understand what's being proposed.

But I think it's safe to say that if you see a work on the internet, *and the author of the work is identifiable*, and the work comes within the scope of copyright law in terms of its creator still being alive, or being dead for less than 70 years, etc, then the work is copyright, and you are indeed breaking the law by republishing it.

'Twosies beats onesies, but nothing beats three...'

"Copyright and Intellectual Property You may not use IC to infringe other people's copyrights. By uploading text, pictures or other content to IC, you assert that you own the copyright, have permission from the copyright owner or the material's copyright is in the public domain. By uploading content to public areas of IC, you grant IC a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to make your material available in public via WWW, email, RSS or any other protocol, until you explicitly remove your material from the website."

Stopping there all that says is IC can make material available you post or pictures you upload. It does not say others can. I don't think someone uploading a photo to their own profile page is IC being licensed. The individual has made a copy of someone else's photo, stored it on their own computer, then uploaded it. So I don't agree with the person's point.

" Material contributed by other users of the site remains under their own copyright, and you must obtain their permission before reproducing it elsewhere."

By saying elsewhere that might imply you can reproduce it here. SO they could usefully add " elsewhere or on IC"

" Unless otherwise stated, material produced by IC which you download may be reproduced for personal use only. You may not use IC to publish private correspondence without the sender's permission, or publish private correspondence from IC elsewhere without the sender's permission. You may not create unofficial online or offline groups, businesses or events etc which use Informed Consent's name, which imply that they are official, or which claim they are endorsed by Informed Consent. (Please think up your own name!) "