Image sharing rules...

This is gonna sound like an odd question...and who knows maybe no one will respond.

Rule #5 reads: You agree to post only content that you have copyright for, or with written permission from the copyright owner.

What does that mean to you? Does it mean that it needs to be your image...does it mean you can post images that you have bought the copyright to...does it mean you can post images that were part of a turorial and you put your edit on them?

And on that last one...how do you feel about someone posting images that came from a tutorial...that they put their spin on? Is that kosher?

I am no asking because I want to do that...let me be 100% clear on that. I would never, under any circumstance do that. But I want to hear what others think.

Can't really answer but I'm concerned if I share an ancient image I don't fall foul.

Recently I was looking up some historical stuff and was surprised to see that no copyright existed and the passage of time had erased all such.
And that was in stare archives.
They were just holding a copy but didn't claim any ownership.
I thus posted that here with a link or acknowledgement (?) of its origins.

avondale87 wrote in post #19285079
Can't really answer but I'm concerned if I share an ancient image I don't fall foul.

Recently I was looking up some historical stuff and was surprised to see that no copyright existed and the passage of time had erased all such.
And that was in stare archives.
They were just holding a copy but didn't claim any ownership.
I thus posted that here with a link or acknowledgement (?) of its origins.

I think it might be looked on differently, if you are admitting that an image is not yours, and posted for whatever reason it might be, relevant to a conversation or whatever it might be. But you are not passing it off as your image...

TRhoads wrote in post #19285076
This is gonna sound like an odd question...and who knows maybe no one will respond.

Rule #5 reads: You agree to post only content that you have copyright for, or with written permission from the copyright owner.

What does that mean to you? Does it mean that it needs to be your image...does it mean you can post images that you have bought the copyright to...does it mean you can post images that were part of a turorial and you put your edit on them?

And on that last one...how do you feel about someone posting images that came from a tutorial...that they put their spin on? Is that kosher?

I am no asking because I want to do that...let me be 100% clear on that. I would never, under any circumstance do that. But I want to hear what others think.

Common sense applies here:

You may post your own images.

If you have permission to post an image that is not taken by you, then you can post it, but it would be good to give credit to photographer - also, explaining that permission has been obtained avoids gathering reports on your post.

If there is a tutorial on a website, usually you may not post the images elsewere. In that case post the links to the images instead. Every site has different copyright rules, check them out before copying (embedding or uploading) images here.

Pekka wrote in post #19285418
Common sense applies here:

You may post your own images.

If you have permission to post an image that is not taken by you, then you can post it, but it would be good to give credit to photographer - also, explaining that permission has been obtained avoids gathering reports on your post.

If there is a tutorial on a website, usually you may not post the images elsewere. In that case post the links to the images instead. Every site has different copyright rules, check them out before copying (embedding or uploading) images here.

Again...this is not for my own posting...just trying to understand how the Moderators look at it.

I take exception to images being posted that don't belong to the person sharing them, images known to not belong to them, yet...nothing has been done to stop it. It continues, and each time I see it, it drives me nuts.

Have you reporter these offenders?

squashed wrote in post #19285513
Have you reporter these offenders?

Yes. More than once, and I am not the only one who has.

TRhoads wrote in post #19285076
This is gonna sound like an odd question...and who knows maybe no one will respond.

Rule #5 reads: You agree to post only content that you have copyright for, or with written permission from the copyright owner.

What does that mean to you? Does it mean that it needs to be your image...does it mean you can post images that you have bought the copyright to...does it mean you can post images that were part of a turorial and you put your edit on them?

And on that last one...how do you feel about someone posting images that came from a tutorial...that they put their spin on? Is that kosher?

Generally speaking, yes, it's kosher. The rules of this forum are stricter than what the law in most countries allows under the doctrine of Fair Use. In U.S. copyright law it goes like this:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. (emphasis added)

So the rule requiring that either you be the copyright owner or have written permission from the owner, that's a bit stricter than is necessary. Returning to your question: If you posted an image from a tutorial and put your spin on it to illustrate something (maybe to demonstrate an editing technique), that would be an educational use of the image and would come under Fair Use. The rules of this forum don't recognize fair use, which is sort of sad, because it rules out a lot of useful (educational) sharing of information.

Peano wrote in post #19288592
='Peano;19288592]

Generally speaking, yes, it's kosher. The rules of this forum are stricter than what the law in most countries allows under the doctrine of Fair Use. In U.S. copyright law it goes like this:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. (emphasis added)

So the rule requiring that either you be the copyright owner or have written permission from the owner, that's a bit stricter than is necessary. Returning to your question: If you posted an image from a tutorial and put your spin on it to illustrate something (maybe to demonstrate an editing technique), that would be an educational use of the image and would come under Fair Use. The rules of this forum don't recognize fair use, which is sort of sad, because it rules out a lot of useful (educational) sharing of information.

ok...how about just plain using a tutorial image, editing, posting and claiming as your own, not making it known that it is not yours? There is nothing educational about that...it isn't done to help anyone out.

At the end of the day, this is a photography forum, for photographers to share their work, ideas and hopefully learn from each other. To me...sharing an image that isn't yours, that you only edited, and then not being upfront about it, well that is crap. And it shouldn't be tolerated.

TRhoads wrote in post #19288781
ok...how about just plain using a tutorial image, editing, posting and claiming as your own, not making it known that it is not yours?

I don't think lying comes under fair use.

Peano wrote in post #19288814
='Peano;19288814]
I don't think lying comes under fair use.

Agreed. Which is why I don't think fair use comes into the discussion.

TRhoads wrote in post #19288781
ok...how about just plain using a tutorial image, editing, posting and claiming as your own, not making it known that it is not yours? There is nothing educational about that...it isn't done to help anyone out.

At the end of the day, this is a photography forum, for photographers to share their work, ideas and hopefully learn from each other. To me...sharing an image that isn't yours, that you only edited, and then not being upfront about it, well that is crap. And it shouldn't be tolerated.

And surely the mod posts further up show that they wouldn't tolerate such? At least based on the context you've presented. Of course mods might not be aware of such postings unless they are reported and even if they are reported you might have to link them (in the report) to the original source of the images in question. Just saying "this isn't that persons photography" might not be enough, esp if the mods cannot quickly/easily find the original source of the photograph.

Eg google image search might not return anything but the forums result if the editing is enough that the computer can't connect the original with the new; or if the original isn't in the database/ranks high enough in it to get flagged up.


Clearly you've seen some specific examples so perhaps instead of a report you could give a pm to one of the mods to point out these specific situations directly. It might be that previous reports lacked information or that there's more context to this and that mods can simply enlighten you on those specific examples as to why they might not be fully in breach of the rules.

An interesting twist on this discussion is occurring at the moment over at the Before and After editing thread - starting at https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=19288224 and following

Perhaps something for Pekka to comment on, particularly about the best / most legitimate way to share outside of POTN.

(Suggest we keep any comments on that matter here, on this thread, rather than adding to the editing thread.)

TRhoads wrote in post #19288865
Agreed. Which is why I don't think fair use comes into the discussion.

I don't understand your reply. Fair use and lying are entirely separate issues. Fair use simply says you may use copyrighted work without permission from the copyright owner in certain instances, such as for comment, criticism and educational purposes. It does not say you may falsely claim ownership of another person's property.

Here's an example from this forum: https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=19276666

The image duplicated on the left is the one I used for purposes of illustrating a technique. I don't own it , nor did I have written permission from the copyright owner (nor did I falsely claim to own it). But in this case that doesn't matter, because my use of it is clearly for an educational purpose.

That's an example of how fair use comes into the discussion. It allowed me to show someone a technique rather than merely describe it in words. When you're dealing with a visual medium like photography, that is a very useful thing to be able to do.

EDIT: Note also how the original poster used photos from someone's Instagram page to show the results he wanted to achieve. Without those photos, it would be impossible to understand what he was after. That's another illustration of why fair use is so valuable in educational forums like this one.

As an aside just to illustrate how tricky copyright law can be, here is an actual U.S. case, modified to make you the plaintiff:

You’re a graphic artist. Over a period of years, you have produced concert posters for a touring band. They paid for the posters, of course, but you still hold the copyright.

Smith is writing a history of that band covering several decades of its career. He discovers the concert posters you’ve produced over the years and asks for your permission to reproduce them in his book. You and Smith negotiate but can’t agree on a licensing fee.

Smith then decides to use the posters without your permission. He reproduces reduced copies in his book to illustrate the group’s concerts over the years.

When the book is published and goes on sale in bookstores, you sue Smith for copyright infringement. Smith claims Fair Use as his defense.

You be the judge. Do you prevail because Smith used your copyrighted work without your permission and without paying you for it? Or does Smith prevail because his use of your work comes under the Fair Use Doctrine?