Incorrect interpretation of PN rules by moderators

[Karim Ghantous]

There is this rule that applies to all of PN:

 

Any image you post should be your own work. If you want to reference an image shot by someone else, please link to it rather than post the image itself.

 

So that means I can't just copy and paste someone else's work. And that rule is 100% right and good. The only two ways to show someone else's work are:

 

1. Paste a URL

 

2. Embed the image from the host site

 

In this thread about a Sears store in California, I did the latter. Which is exactly the same thing that you would do if you were embedding a video. I was accused of violating copyright law, which is obviously illogical, because we are allowed to post video links as often as we like. I have never been accused of violating copyright law when I post video links.

 

Users of Flickr agree to that site's terms of service, too, which means other sites are allowed to embed their images for editorial purposes.

 

Also, the photo sin question is under the CC licence, although that is merely a detail.

 

The moderators on the Casual Conversations forum have made an error. No other platform or service that I know of enforces rules that are stricter than American copyright laws. Even YouTube, which is notoriously censorious about subject matter, has more balanced rules about the use of other people's content. In fact in some ways they are more relaxed.

 

I also request a formal acknowledgment that I did not violate copyright laws.

 

Thank you.

[mikemorrell]

In this case, I agree. You embedded links (rather than uploading images) and you also made it very clear who the photographer is.

 

Embedded links to photos/videos should not IHHO be considered as (own work) uploads.

[Sandy Vongries]

Terms of use under #2 You agree to upload and post only User Content that you have created yourself.

[Karim Ghantous]

Terms of use under #2 You agree to upload and post only User Content that you have created yourself.

So no video links from now on? I have to know, because I have posted embedded links to videos many times. Nobody told me that I couldn't. No threads were closed.

 

And can you acknowledge that I broke no copyright laws? That would be very much appreciated.

 

Finally, is it possible for you to explain why PN's rules are stricter than those set out by other platforms and American copyright law?

[Sandy Vongries]

I am not a lawyer, and will not make such an assertion. I suggest that all read and understand the Terms of Use. I will not comment on past enforcement of Terms of Use. Further clarification should be obtained from current owners as may be necessary.

[AlanKlein]

So no video links from now on? I have to know, because I have posted embedded links to videos many times. Nobody told me that I couldn't. No threads were closed.

 

And can you acknowledge that I broke no copyright laws? That would be very much appreciated.

 

Finally, is it possible for you to explain why PN's rules are stricter than those set out by other platforms and American copyright law?

Sometimes it's best not to ask so many questions.

[WJT]

Karim, the offending post has been deleted. The terms of use only permit the image owner to post an image. The link that you posted opened automatically to the image so it appeared that you had directly posted the image, which would not have been permitted on this site. Perhaps a better way of referencing another's images is needed in the future. Regards.

[invisibleflash]

There is this rule that applies to all of PN:

 

Any image you post should be your own work. If you want to reference an image shot by someone else, please link to it rather than post the image itself.

 

So that means I can't just copy and paste someone else's work. And that rule is 100% right and good. The only two ways to show someone else's work are:

 

1. Paste a URL

 

2. Embed the image from the host site

 

In this thread about a Sears store in California, I did the latter. Which is exactly the same thing that you would do if you were embedding a video. I was accused of violating copyright law, which is obviously illogical, because we are allowed to post video links as often as we like. I have never been accused of violating copyright law when I post video links.

 

Users of Flickr agree to that site's terms of service, too, which means other sites are allowed to embed their images for editorial purposes.

 

Also, the photo sin question is under the CC licence, although that is merely a detail.

 

The moderators on the Casual Conversations forum have made an error. No other platform or service that I know of enforces rules that are stricter than American copyright laws. Even YouTube, which is notoriously censorious about subject matter, has more balanced rules about the use of other people's content. In fact in some ways they are more relaxed.

 

I also request a formal acknowledgment that I did not violate copyright laws.

 

Thank you.

 

That is the oddball thing about this forum. Discussing others work comes under 'fair use.' There are a lot of posts I don't send in here for that very reason.

[Karim Ghantous]

Perhaps a better way of referencing another's images is needed in the future. Regards.

We don't need a better way. We already have a perfectly good method which violates no American copyright laws. We just need to ask the owners of PN to approve of embedded links, which I am going to do right now.

[JDMvW]

Isn't another rule here that "moderation" shall not be discussed?

 

You should'a been here in the old days.

[PapaTango]

Isn't another rule here that "moderation" shall not be discussed?

 

You should'a been here in the old days.

 

Or not so old! Checking out the new beta site, I found a lifetime ding from Glen Palm (remember him kids?) for just that. Feels kinda neat to be in the "bad boys" club...

 

[Mark Keefer]

Next time, just type the word LINK, highlight it, click the chain link symbol and paste the URL, that way the reader clicks the link, it takes them to the site and page, image, video where it is hosted on, a site that is not owned by Photo.net and Photo.net can not be accused of hosting copyrighted material. PN will not have to hire lawyers to fight some stupid lawsuit by some zealous attorney. Don't take it personal. In your case you are not being accused of saying someone's photo is yours or plagiarizing some ones work. It may be more of a PN doesn't want legal hassles.

 

LINK it and no worries. ;)

 

I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever played on on TV. I am not an admin here and have no policy making authority. I have been around a while and see no harm in working with the site. Regard it as an oppps can't do that warning. You weren't banned from the PN were you. It should be cool, live and learn.

Edited September 24, 2022 by Mark Keefer

[Sandy Vongries]

Next time, just type the word LINK, highlight it, click the chain link symbol and paste the URL, that way reader clicks the link, it takes them to the site and page, image, video where it is hosted on, a site that is not owned by Photo.net and Photo.net can not be accused of hosting copyrighted material. PN will not have to hire lawyers to fight some stupid lawsuit by some zealous attorney. Don't take it personal. In your case you are not being accused of saying someone's photo is yours or plagiarizing some ones work. It may be more of a PN doesn't want legal hassles.

 

LINK it and no worries. ;)

Works for me.

[JDMvW]

I quite agree, although it's good to remember that external links are often less than "permanent". A post with a large number of 'dead' links is very frustrating, so when it is your own creation, I recommend actually posting rather than linking to some fly-by-night outfit like FaceBook or whatever.:rolleyes:

[JDMvW]

I recently was reminded that the failure of LINKS though various kinds of entropy, is called "link rot"

[conrad_hoffman]

So what is an "image owner" anyway? How do you prove it? I deal with many hundred-year-old images, family and otherwise. If they have an owner, he/she is long dead and gone. Is possession 9/10th of the law? Is the site really only interested in self-shot sunsets and bifs?

[samstevens]

9 minutes ago, conrad_hoffman said:

So what is an "image owner" anyway? How do you prove it? I deal with many hundred-year-old images, family and otherwise. If they have an owner, he/she is long dead and gone. Is possession 9/10th of the law? Is the site really only interested in self-shot sunsets and bifs?

If you shot the photo, post it. If you didn’t shoot the photo, link it. If your great grandfather shot the photo and you’re comfortable posting it, I doubt anyone will care. If you post Weston’s pepper, someone will care. It will be deleted or it won’t be deleted. No proof involved. As always, judgment accounts for much.

Edited October 8, 2022 by samstevens

[conrad_hoffman]

BTW, if the site has rules, I can't find them in any obvious location.

 

[Sandy Vongries]

Nor could I.  Messaged Admin  Suggest we observe old conventions until replacements are posted.  I will be responding as may be needed with that thought in mind.