Image sharing rules...

Peano wrote in post #19288950
='Peano;19288950]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. . . .

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?

How did the real judge rule? Was it relevant that concert posters were given away in great numbers and displayed on shop windows and telephone poles, presumably at the band's expense, to publicize concerts?

OhLook wrote in post #19288978
How did the real judge rule? Was it relevant that concert posters were given away in great numbers and displayed on shop windows and telephone poles, presumably at the band's expense, to publicize concerts?

I'll give others a chance to render their verdicts if they want to, and then I'll post a link to the actual case.

Peano wrote in post #19288992
='Peano;19288992]I'll give others a chance to render their verdicts if they want to

I would have sided with the artist whose copyrighted work was used without permission. What could the basis for fair use be? However, given that you said fair use can be tricky, I have no idea what to expect the judge did.

OK, since there's not much interest in this topic, here's the verdict: Smith wins. A federal trial court and a federal appeals court both ruled that Smith's use of the posters was fair use. The appellate decision lays out a detailed factual analysis to justify its ruling.

One takeaway from this case is that your intuitive sense of what is fair is not a reliable guide to what copyright law does and doesn't allow.

Peano wrote in post #19289398
='Peano;19289398]OK, since there's not much interest in this topic, here's the verdict: Smith wins. A federal trial court and a federal appeals court both ruled that Smith's use of the posters was fair use. The appellate decision lays out a detailed factual analysis to justify its ruling.

One takeaway from this case is that your intuitive sense of what is fair is not a reliable guide to what copyright law does and doesn't allow.

This forum is probably run off a server in Finland and is visited by members all over the world.
Does a USA ruling hold in other parts of the world? How about "fair use"? I don't know, I'm no lawyer.

Peano wrote in post #19289398
='Peano;19289398]OK, since there's not much interest in this topic, here's the verdict: Smith wins. A federal trial court and a federal appeals court both ruled that Smith's use of the posters was fair use. The appellate decision lays out a detailed factual analysis to justify its ruling.

One takeaway from this case is that your intuitive sense of what is fair is not a reliable guide to what copyright law does and doesn't allow.

Indeed. I particularly take issue with the bit about "transformative" use. The book publisher's purpose in using the images wasn't to promote concerts or to display artistic merit. Somehow, that fact turns into an argument for transformation.

Capn Jack wrote in post #19289415
Does a USA ruling hold in other parts of the world?

No.

It varies from country to country.

OhLook wrote in post #19289427
Indeed. I particularly take issue with the bit about "transformative" use. The book publisher's purpose in using the images wasn't to promote concerts or to display artistic merit. Somehow, that fact turns into an argument for transformation.

That's what I meant about not trusting your intuition or gut feelings about what is fair. It isn't "somehow" an argument for transformation. Courts have ruled very clearly that when a copyrighted work is copied and used with a different meaning, that can constitute a transformative use. You don't have to physically alter (transform) the work itself, like editing a digital image; you can transform its meaning, and that's what the defendant did in this case.

But it's hardly cut and dried. If you really want to dive into the complexities of transformative use, you can work through this law review article*: An Empirical Study of Transformative Use in Copyright Law

*Not for the faint of heart

Peano wrote in post #19289442
='Peano;19289442]No.

It varies from country to country.

I'd suggest that those answers might the basis of the rules for this forum. As I'm just a forum user, it is only a guess on my part.

TRhoads wrote in post #19285076
.
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?
.

.
To me it means that this forum ownership wants to be protected from liability or legal repercussions in the event that someone posts someone else's content and the owner or copyright holder raises a stink about it. . Seems like good sound legalese to me, to protect POTN from any trouble that may arise from its member's actions.


.

Is it acceptable to edit someone else’s photo and post it back to the thread. It happened to me. Felt a bit weird to see my own work slightly modified.

ImageMaker... wrote in post #19300048
Is it acceptable to edit someone else’s photo and post it back to the thread. It happened to me. Felt a bit weird to see my own work slightly modified.

Asking permission first is customary if the original photographer's signature doesn't include "Image editing OK" or the equivalent.

OhLook wrote in post #19300185
Asking permission first is customary if the original photographer's signature doesn't include "Image editing OK" or the equivalent.

I had no such notice in my signature nor was permission asked.

Then no, and you should feel free to ask them to take it down. If that does not work, and you feel it is necessary, contact a moderator by using the "report" feature.

Some photography forums have a custom user title system that allows users to put a notice under their avatar info to say if they do or don't allow editing of their photos.