Photo Copyright

As with any sites, if an image is pointed out to not be owned by the poster (but they have hosted it themselves via photobucket or similar) we would need to look into it. If that user has just 'hotlinked' the image, there is no copyright infringement (yet! Laws do change).

It obviously would be courteous to credit whoever owns the image.

taken from wikipedia :-


Copyright law issues that inline linking raises

The most significant legal fact about inline linking, relative to copyright law considerations, is that the inline linker does not place a copy of the image file on its own Internet server. Rather, the inline linker places a pointer on its Internet server that points to the server on which the proprietor of the image has placed the image file. This pointer causes a user's browser to jump to the proprietor's server and fetch the image file to the user's computer. US courts have considered this a decisive fact in copyright analysis. Thus, in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,[5] the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained why inline linking did not violate US copyright law:

Google does not...display a copy of full-size infringing photographic images for purposes of the Copyright Act when Google frames in-line linked images that appear on a user’s computer screen. Because Google’s computers do not store the photographic images, Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act. In other words, Google does not have any “material objects...in which a work is fixed...and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated” and thus cannot communicate a copy. Instead of communicating a copy of the image, Google provides HTML instructions that direct a user’s browser to a website publisher’s computer that stores the full-size photographic image. Providing these HTML instructions is not equivalent to showing a copy. First, the HTML instructions are lines of text, not a photographic image. Second, HTML instructions do not themselves cause infringing images to appear on the user’s computer screen. The HTML merely gives the address of the image to the user’s browser. The browser then interacts with the computer that stores the infringing image. It is this interaction that causes an infringing image to appear on the user’s computer screen. Google may facilitate the user’s access to infringing images. However, such assistance raised only contributory liability issues and does not constitute direct infringement of the copyright owner’s display rights. ...While in-line linking and framing may cause some computer users to believe they are viewing a single Google webpage, the Copyright Act...does not protect a copyright holder against [such] acts....​

[/]

See more on Wikipedia

 

This is always an awkward topic when talking about copyright and intelectual property rights.

I think that, from the GC management point of view, there is little problem.

Links seem not to come under the scope and most (possibly all) pictures put up by members would have no commercial profit for the poster or GC. No commercial value doesn't automatically absolve you of guilt but goes a long way towards it.

Pictures of products (which are quite often put up) only enhance the manufacturer/seller's chance of a profit.
Pictures taken from elsewhere and posted as the poster's own is a form of theft. But I rarely see anything on here that would come under that category.
Picture taken from elsewhere and used as an illustration of a point (probably much more common) are usually harmless and the owner of the picture is unlikely to object.
What we do get a lot of are the copying of cartoon type pictures to illustrate a humorous post. This is wrong but, once again, is fairly harmless.

So I don't see that GC has much to worry about. Otherwise they would have to vet every picture before it is posted. Maybe, somewhere in GC's terms and conditions they could put something to the effect of "pictures posted by members, that are not their own, require either the owner's permission or a credit to them".

In my opinion, I wouldn't put that into the T's & C's as I think it is unnecessary and could be confusing.

Of course, it would help if the poster did put a credit up.

 

Although I agree that wrong is wrong I wasn't really using the term 'fairly harmless' as a defence. I was referring to it as a grey area. With a lot of the content available on the internet there is a great difficulty in attributing ownership or copyright.

Having had a business that did have copyright (photographic agency) it was understood that there would be these grey areas. The thing that we were concerned about is if our pictures were being used to enhance someone elses bottom line.

e.g if we made a portfolio for a model the copyright still remained with us even though she had paid for the portfolio. There was no problem with her sending copies to agents and agents sending copies to clients - that was the purpose of the portfolio although, technically, the agents should ask our permission to forward them to their clients.

If the client was going to employ the model and take their own photos then that, of course, was none of our business but sometimes they actually used our photo(s) as well. That would be infringement of our copyright and our permission should be asked first. In most cases we would give permission but we were really entitled to a byline or payment.

Then we come to a greyer area. If the model has got a job in theatre and our photo is used by the theatre to advertise in the newspapers that the model is in the show, are we entitled to anything. Yes we are, but is the photo being used to advertise the model or the show? If it's the model then we would ignore our rights but if it was the show we should be entitled to something.

This brings us to the problem of our reputation amongst models. If we're seen to be making things difficult we may lose further commissions from the model and friends. Usually a request for a byline is sufficient.

So, going back to the original question. The forum would have considerable difficulty in policing everything that the members do and they shouldn't be expected to do so on a forum such as this. The members aren't making a profit from the practice and I can't see any copyright holder objecting to what occurs on here. Giving a byline would help but, more often than not, the member hasn't the faintest idea who to give the byline to.

The other day I put up a picture of Wile E Coyote (ACME Corporation). The page I got it from had four identical pictures and each was put up by a different company and none of those were the originators of the character.

Apologies for letting my fingers run away with me

 

I always Copy and watermark one set just in case, that's not infallible though

 

A good example, Freddy

Technically, yes! (Illegal is the wrong word as it's civil law - infringment is the word used.)
Practically, no!! It would be 'frivolous' to take you to court over it. You could argue under 'fair use' or 'fair dealing' but the way you have used it wouldn't quite cover it.

The way a lot of us use other people's work on here is to illustrate a point and, although you are allowed to use someone elses work as news reporting (stretching a point) you can't use a photo.

From a practical point of view, the way we use most things on here would, at worst, mean you would have to remove it if requested.

 

No, although I think that some of you think my avatar is a photo of me!