Is this copyright infringement?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat May 12, 2012 10:14 am

I took a photo off a forum *GASP!!1!* and did a side-by-side comparison to a well known actor in drag and someone told me that because the forum says something about copyright in their TOS that I'm breaking the law by posting this.

I don't mean to get FG in trouble if that's so, but since when has a TOS been the decider of legality? If you post a photo online, isn't there a little more to copyrighting something than just saying 'copyright'. I could start a forum and announce I'm empress of the universe but that wouldn't make it true.

Here's the photo in question, please feel free to remove it if needed.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat May 12, 2012 10:20 am

Who is that?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat May 12, 2012 10:30 am

That's Willem Dafoe from Boondock Saints on the left.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat May 12, 2012 11:00 am

I'm no expert on copyright but If someone puts a pic of themselves on a public forum, then they have put It In the public domain and as I understand It becomes public.

If a celeb Is In a public magazine or newspaper then likewise.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat May 12, 2012 11:01 am

Is that Duchess on the right ?

rotfl

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat May 12, 2012 2:49 pm

I absolutely adore Willem Dafoe.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat May 12, 2012 2:57 pm

oscar;1393471 wrote: Is that Duchess on the right ?

rotfl

Yep. I was going to put her next to Chuck Connors but no one probably remembers him. Then I remembered Willem Dafoe in drag, found the photo and nearly weed myself laughing at the resemblance even down to the sunglasses. Holy crap, that chin and jaw!

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat May 12, 2012 3:31 pm

SnoozeAgain;1393474 wrote: Yep. I was going to put her next to Chuck Connors but no one probably remembers him. Then I remembered Willem Dafoe in drag, found the photo and nearly weed myself laughing at the resemblance even down to the sunglasses. Holy crap, that chin and jaw!

I'll put them on Mock In a Lookylikely thread :yh_rotfl

She'll go mental

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat May 12, 2012 3:44 pm

oscar;1393475 wrote: I'll put them on Mock In a Lookylikely thread :yh_rotfl

She'll go mental

She'll ban you.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat May 12, 2012 4:17 pm

SnoozeAgain;1393476 wrote: She'll ban you. Don't you mean he will ban me ? :sneaky:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat May 12, 2012 4:40 pm

AnneBoleyn;1393473 wrote: I absolutely adore Willem Dafoe.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Sat May 12, 2012 9:19 pm

There`s only one person I know who does not mind if his pictures are copied & pasted to every wall in this planet. He is Krishna ( God).

Post by **spot** » Sun May 13, 2012 12:23 am

oscar;1393470 wrote: If someone puts a pic of themselves on a public forum, then they have put It In the public domain and as I understand It becomes public.If I were to say there's no truth in that in any country's Intellectual Property law (that being what copyright law falls under), would I have sufficiently toned down my initial reaction to the point where it's civil?

There is a status of Public Domain, that's true. The sole way for anything, image or text, to acquire that status before its default copyright expires is for the copyright holder to explicitly declare the image or text to be Public Domain, and that's true worldwide. Mere use of the image or text by the copyright holder, or by anyone else with or without the copyright holder's permission, doesn't cause those rights to evaporate or imply Public Domain status.

The US and the UK have different laws on copyright, anything more detailed would have to say which country is being discussed. I've carefully worded the previous paragraph to apply equally to both. It wasn't true in either country within living memory but it is true at the moment.

The only defense a forum member or forum owner would have against a claim by a non-permissive genuine copyright holder is one of fair use. Whether what's been done in this thread is fair use can only be tested by a court, until then whether it's fair use is mere opinion. The size or resolution or extent of distribution or reason for posting or context may all influence that court decision, and you can only have a court decision if the genuine copyright holder asks a court to make one and that costs money. If the forum owner decides to make life easier by imposing local rules on the use of any image or text that, surely, is within the owner's legitimate sphere. Can we at least agree the whole of this paragraph as also applying equally to the US and UK please? Or are we trying to find discord rather than common ground.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 13, 2012 1:04 am

SnoozeAgain;1393466 wrote: I took a photo off a forum *GASP!!1!* and did a side-by-side comparison to a well known actor in drag and someone told me that because the forum says something about copyright in their TOS that I'm breaking the law by posting this.The reason the site you posted on has a TOS is to avoid the very difficult legal issue of whether what you did is in breach of anyone's legal rights in breach of someone's copyright or not. Breaking TOS isn't necessarily illegal, it's just a breach of the terms you agreed to abide by on the site. What you need to ask is whether you've actually broken their TOS or not. It sounds very likely that you did. Then you need to ask yourself whether you actually agreed to abide by their TOS in order to be allowed member rights at their site. It sounds very likely that you did. In which case, what leg are you trying to stand on?

As for the site you took the image from, if you explicitly agreed their terms of use then you're bound by their terms as well as those of the site you posted on. If you didn't explicitly agree them then their rights, to whatever extent they have any, are immaterial unless they happen also to be the genuine copyright holder.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Sun May 13, 2012 4:33 am

My View on Copyright Infringement is that you use an idea not your own & made it public without consent or acknowledgment from the one who conceptualized the idea. It wont be considered an infringement if you represent the one who created ( not copied ) it. There are exceptions however. For example youtube. You can download/upload a video from the website without ado simply because the name of the website is YOU. It means YOU have a right to download/upload videos on that website without asking permission otherwise it has no business calling itself YOU. My point here is that if you are not a fan say of William Dafoe or youtube & you copy & paste their pictures & videos on FB or FG without permission or to whom they represent then that is an infringement.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Sun May 13, 2012 5:38 am

Am I being understood? Another example. I have this knack of uploading my thread on FG at FB. Did I commit an infringement. No, I did not simply because I`m a senior member here. I`m promoting FG to my friends/public at FB. But if my thread derides FG I uploaded to my FB & tell my friends & the public FG is b....! Is this considered an infringement? No. Unless it`s Snooze`s thread I uploaded/downloaded from FG to my FB ( without his consent ) & made public is what I consider an infringement.

Note: FG`s Admin/moderators at all times watch out for a starter thread deriding FG. They may wake up reading their FB`s an uploaded thread from FG to FB that b.s. FG. & banning the culprit/member might already be too late.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun May 13, 2012 6:47 am

Two points. I'm female and I don't mind if you post anything of mine. If I put it online, it's out there for anyone to see.

<--- that's me, hopefully I don't look like a man.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Sun May 13, 2012 7:50 am

Wow! I did not know Snooze you were woman & wondering why you have this soft spot for me. That was when I suggested you change your avatar ( octopus ) to a firetruck & you did. Did you do a research on my status? I Google searched myself awhile ago & I was surprised how extensive my reputation was after a few years using the screen names:

rajakrsna

Google

krsnaraja

Google

Yes, I don`t mind, too, if you put on line what you post on my thread.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Sun May 13, 2012 8:28 am

Me & my wife, Celsa

My son Marco Nino & his wife, Ola

My grandson, Max

My son, Matthew & his wife, Marilyn

My grand daughter, Atasha

Me & my daughter, Melsa Reina

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun May 13, 2012 8:43 am

Those two babies are absolutely beautiful and I don't say that lightly.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Sun May 13, 2012 8:55 am

SnoozeAgain;1393513 wrote: Those two babies are absolutely beautiful and I don't say that lightly.

God`s in these two babies. That`s why I never stopped believing in God. He makes us so happy he gave us Max & Atasha.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun May 13, 2012 10:40 am

rajakrsna;1393514 wrote: God`s in these two babies. That`s why I never stopped believing in God. He makes us so happy he gave us Max & Atasha.

Beautiful beautiful babies Raj .

Post by **spot** » Sun May 13, 2012 2:49 pm

rajakrsna;1393499 wrote: My View on Copyright Infringement is that you use an idea not your own & made it public without consent or acknowledgment from the one who conceptualized the idea. It wont be considered an infringement if you represent the one who created ( not copied ) it. There are exceptions however. For example youtube. You can download/upload a video from the website without ado simply because the name of the website is YOU. It means YOU have a right to download/upload videos on that website without asking permission otherwise it has no business calling itself YOU. My point here is that if you are not a fan say of William Dafoe or youtube & you copy & paste their pictures & videos on FB or FG without permission or to whom they represent then that is an infringement.It's a damn sight closer to legal accuracy than oscar's attempt, I'll give you that.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun May 13, 2012 3:38 pm

spot;1393525 wrote: It's a damn sight closer to legal accuracy than oscar's attempt, I'll give you that.

If we all had as much time on our hands as you appear to have, we could all have done as I suspect you did and find the legalities of copyright through our search engines.

I however, offered my opinion to Snooze based on the forum that she had the problem with, and the member who's photograph she used. As this member offered up no terms that copyright applied when she posted her picture on a public gallery on a public forum, I suggested she had little legal entitlement this late In the day.

You however, know nothing of the forum, the member Involved nor the background Information.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun May 13, 2012 3:44 pm

Yeah, I don't remember it being mentioned in the TOS but then I admit I don't read those as thoroughly as I probably should. She's the type of admin that gets upset about something, changes the TOS and then retroactively punishes the offender.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun May 13, 2012 3:54 pm

SnoozeAgain;1393532 wrote: Yeah, I don't remember it being mentioned in the TOS but then I admit I don't read those as thoroughly as I probably should. She's the type of admin that gets upset about something, changes the TOS and then retroactively punishes the offender.

Don't worry about It Shrug.... She's posted pics of herself on a public forum for all to see without any of the magic words accompanying It, such as... ' Image subject to copyright'.... she's had a hissy fit because you've used It. She can't cry copyright laws now If she was too stupid to protect the Images she posted with those magic words.

And.... I just logged n there and read their TOS and there's nothing abut using Images posted or anything to do with copyright.... she's trying It on with you now and making the rules up as she goes along to suit herself.... Going to wind her up now... Oscar supress's evil smirk

Post by **spot** » Mon May 14, 2012 6:29 am

oscar;1393534 wrote: She's posted pics of herself on a public forum for all to see without any of the magic words accompanying It, such as... ' Image subject to copyright'.... You're simply impossible sometimes. Can you not get it into your head, you don't need magic words for something to be copyright? The default state for every image is that it's copyright until either the copyright expires or it's explicitly "magic-worded" into the public domain, or licensed for free use, by the genuine copyright holder - nobody else can do it and it has to be a positive action releasing it, not just the fact that it's been displayed. If you want to see how problematic the whole affair is look at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Hirtle_chart and consider that's only the US position.

How you expect to know anything at all about this without looking it up baffles me, it's scarcely intuitive. I know bits about it because I've been paid to know about it in the past and I've kept roughly up to date since. That involves reading. Trying to either guess or to work it out from first principles just won't work.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon May 14, 2012 7:00 am

SnoozeAgain;1393532 wrote: Yeah, I don't remember it being mentioned in the TOS but then I admit I don't read those as thoroughly as I probably should. She's the type of admin that gets upset about something, changes the TOS and then retroactively punishes the offender.

Who is this person making your life a living hell?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon May 14, 2012 7:53 am

To confuse things even more, let me relate a minor dispute I was involved in.

A partner took photos of installations of his co partners product.

He gave these images on a CD for the partner to use if he so wanted to.

They subsequently broke their partnership and I used the images on a website.

The images were given to me by the apparent owner, having been given them by his partner.

The images were of products made by the person that gave me them, but only photographed by the other person.

The photographs were of installations when in a partnership of work produced by the partnership.

But the copyright still resided with the one who took the photographs, even though the subject matter had virtually nothing to do with him.

I took the images down.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon May 14, 2012 7:56 am

SnoozeAgain;1393466 wrote: I could start a forum and announce I'm empress of the universe but that wouldn't make it true.

Here's the photo in question, please feel free to remove it if needed.

You're not? But? ....you said.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon May 14, 2012 8:04 am

spot;1393548 wrote: You're simply impossible sometimes. Can you not get it into your head, you don't need magic words for something to be copyright? The default state for every image is that it's copyright until either the copyright expires or it's explicitly "magic-worded" into the public domain, or licensed for free use, by the genuine copyright holder - nobody else can do it and it has to be a positive action releasing it, not just the fact that it's been displayed. If you want to see how problematic the whole affair is look at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Hirtle_chart and consider that's only the US position.

How you expect to know anything at all about this without looking it up baffles me, it's scarcely intuitive. I know bits about it because I've been paid to know about it in the past and I've kept roughly up to date since. That involves reading. Trying to either guess or to work it out from first principles just won't work.

yeah that's right . I post photos on an australian media site and they are mine until I say otherwise . there are 5 copyright titles to choose from but i still own the image if I don't choose any of them . The sixth title is a release.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Mon May 14, 2012 10:50 am

flopstock;1393551 wrote: Who is this person making your life a living hell?

Its hard being me Flop, I'm so misunderstood.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 14, 2012 11:11 am

SnoozeAgain;1393588 wrote: Its hard being me Flop, I'm so misunderstood.

You've got the point that images (and text) are copyright regardless of anyone having to establish such a claim? The onus on using a photo is on you to prove it's free to use, or to argue that your use of it is fair use. Proving it's free to use is a matter of showing the copyright owner has released it on those terms, or that copyright has expired. You can't prove it's fair use, only a court can finally determine whether it is or not.

If you consider the photos I've taken myself and put in my albums on this forum for example, the TOS here says that in exchange for membership I grant FG the right to reproduce those photos in any medium it chooses. Neither I nor FG have said the images are free to use or that they're public domain. If a third party reproduced them then I, the copyright holder, might well ask for any money made as a result of that unauthorized reproduction.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Mon May 14, 2012 11:21 am

Two points: my remark to Floppy was facetious and I obviously haven't made any money.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 14, 2012 11:31 am

SnoozeAgain;1393594 wrote: Two points: my remark to Floppy was facetious and I obviously haven't made any money.

I'd say any forum owner would be well within bounds banning you just to reduce the aggravation. Getting a take-down request from a lawyer, possibly with a demand for costs, is a perpetual risk and a not unknown occurrence even on FG. Why should a site put up with the headache?

I'd note, for clarity, that asking that you be banned here for copy-posting copyright images is not in my mind. My point about "making money" was one of the more likely triggers for anyone pursuing the unauthorized use of copyright material through the courts.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Mon May 14, 2012 11:59 am

Oh, there are always plenty of reasons to ban me, I'm incorrigible.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 14, 2012 12:26 pm

SnoozeAgain;1393597 wrote: Oh, there are always plenty of reasons to ban me, I'm incorrigible.

You're preaching to the converted, sweetie.

It'll never happen.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 14, 2012 12:35 pm

For reference, Public Domain Calculator - Home is a useful asset when considering the possible copyright of sounds, images or text in a European setting.