I fully understand the problem. We have the same in another forum I'm frequenting.
This is a very difficult thing: in the mentioned forum we post pictures of things we made from clay.
We must be very careful not to post things which look like things someone else made before.
Of course we are not allowed to build figures like Mickey Mouse or similar and show them in that forum.
Some have left the forum meanwhile because they became too unsure if they may post their works or not.

I wonder: not to post pictures with a copyright sign, is it that easy? I don't remember that I ever found this sign.... Watermark I know.
I also wonder what about stills from movies / pieces. I could imagine that it's illegal, too.
This would mean, we could forget more than half of the pics in the "favourite Benedict pic" thread.

Last edited by Mattlocked (January 5, 2013 9:58 pm)

In the end, this notice is given to you all so that you can modify what you have posted or what you may post in future. The way to modify these would be to edit the posts to just having a link to the pictures, thus removing any blame from this site.
Short of that if staff have to attend to them, the pictures would just be removed as the extra time involved in getting a link & replacing the picture could become all consuming.
That's standard procedure.

Thanks for your anticipated cooperation all.

Sherlock Holmes wrote:

kazza474 wrote:

I mean if we find an 'exclusive picture from Benedict's dressing room' and it was copyrighted.... I wouldn't touch it.

I'd totally post that. Screw getting sued. 

Cute, boss!  Should we be shocked and horrified at your complete lack of ethics and morality?

But seriously, as an internet techno-tard I need a bit of guidance on this topic.  How do I tell if something has a copywrite on it? For example, I've found some cute cartoons or pictures on tumblr that I've copied and posted here.  But I've never seen a copywrite warning and sometimes when I scroll down I see this gigantic "reblogged from" list. I've never quite known what that list means - sometimes it seems endless and a waste of space.  Does it mean every person on that list has copied that picture from somewhere else?  I sometimes try to remember to cite the tumblr account where I found the picture, but don't always do so.  Am I in violation?

More on this :

KeepersPrice wrote:

............ How do I tell if something has a copywrite on it? For example, I've found some cute cartoons or pictures on tumblr that I've copied and posted here.  But I've never seen a copywrite warning and sometimes when I scroll down I see this gigantic "reblogged from" list. I've never quite known what that list means - sometimes it seems endless and a waste of space.  Does it mean every person on that list has copied that picture from somewhere else?  I sometimes try to remember to cite the tumblr account where I found the picture, but don't always do so.  Am I in violation?

I would suggest you read this person's story, posted soon after the law suit was over, in July 2012 so it is very relevant:

HERE

So the short answer to your question is "Unless you know otherwise, consider it copyrighted" and yes, it seems most Tumblr or Facebook 'picture posters' are taking a gamble on the pictures they post.

Skitty, yes it is hard to tell at times.
Basically ask the question 'would a magazine be buying this picture?' If so, it'll be copyrighted or Rights Managed. So what should happen (unless you are using it for an editorial comment on the picture OR educational reasons OR keeping it for your own viewing & no-one else) is that you contact the owner of the picture asking permission.
Same thing with most pics found on Tumblr; someone goes to the trouble of making a picture & then everyone uses it, posts it without asking first and then crediting the owner (via a link usually)
So posting things found on Tumblr & posting a link to that page is pointless; you still haven't asked for permission. You are just pointing out who you 'stole' something from, lol.
As I said, I have seen what happens & it sucks. Read the link & know that a similar thing could happen to ANYONE, especially if you use GettyImages. They are money hungry, they don't care who you are, and to say you have 'no assets' etc is pointless, courts everywhere would put some kind of repayment system into place where you'd have hardship possibly paying the fines back.
I spoke up as I realised most picture posted here are now 'in fashion' to have in magazine. No doubt there will be very few which are safe; old ones most probably will be in the public domain by now.

Slightly in your favour would be the fact that you are not using it to make money. To an artist however, that wouldn't matter.

So, update on what is happening in this forum:
After pointing all this out, it seems to have made little difference. We've conversed as staff and it appears that Admin want to leave it as is. Not my problem, not my wallet then.

Myself personally I try NOT to post many pics; certainly NEVER post a magazine article (that one potentially takes a LOT of money away from the magazine) and will stick with posting links.

A lot of the places that have these pics rely on traffic to their sites to bolster their 'viewing' numbers for potential afvertisers. Without that grwing traffic, they will die out and you will all have to get out your cameras & get your own shots; get out your running shoes & chase people for interviews, etc etc.

In the end, pics sometimes can be a pest for some online, download speeds etc. Some have already seen the pic 100 times, do we need to see it again?
My own personal view of 'picture' threads - well its starting to look like a scrapbooking site here; a 'trophy case' of 'look what I found'. Problem is we all see the same things anyway, lol. No trophies there!
Links open up so much more than just that one story/picture. And a forum, as far as I am concerned is a place for words, not an art museum.

**These are my own personal views not those of the staff on this forum. They do NOT relate to any individual or group of individuals. Any descriptive phrases used are merely used for emphasis of my words and are NOT meant to degrade or embarrass any person or persons whatsoever.

but,  what about the pics  up  above  and below, of sherlock and John,   and what about our avatar pics?   I  uploaded my  kitty  pic  here  to  my   photobucket,  and am using it here.   I  don't remember  which google images site I got it from.  Are those pics ok to use?   I  just read the article,  and it doesn't really answer my question.   But  it DID  help me to understand better.

But,  ok,  what  are the PUBLIC DOMAIN  picture sites?   where are those?   

I  know enough,  also,  to not use pics from deviantart.com  site.   Someone on another fanboard told me of that one.   So,  I steer clear of it.   

thanks for the info tho.

Here's the thing.

In Academia, you have to reference your sources in order for your article to be valid and your research to be accepted by the community at large.

In business/economics, you have to have permission for whatever you "borrow" because YOU ARE MAKING MONEY OUT OF IT.

In the world of fan-based online discussion forums, we are neither publishing white papers that will change shape of the world NOR ARE WE MAKING ANY $$$$ out of it.

So while I understand that it is common courtesy for us to acknowledge our sources, why must our activities be pushed into the legalities of it all? 

Fan-based activities are by their very nature reproductive. We are taking a concept that is already copyrighted and flogging it to death. That is the reason why forums like these websites/forums exist. Depending on which author/producer you talk to (some are very protective of their work & dislike fan-based flogging; while others are more relaxed and actually encourage greater fan-based participation), the very existence of these forums is a Legal question mark.

If we are already halfway there when it comes to crossing the darkside (of blatent copyright infringements) why must we draw even more attention to ourselves by reminding each other that what we're doing is legally grey.

I'm not saying that the original sentiment is wrong; I'm just saying that it's a moot point.

If I'm already breaking the law by flogging a concept, I honestly couldn't care less how much further into the darkside I go since I am (1) not doing anything that will result in catastrophy to half the planet & (2) NOT MAKING ANY $$$$ out of it.

The reason why copyright exists is to prevent people from profiting out of a concept that has already been established on the market. As fans, WE ARE THE MARKET. You might as well tell us not to consume your wonderfully copyrighted material if you're gonna be all overprotective like that.