What kind of light is in this pic?

[480sparky]

I'm a noob here, so maybe I don't understand the distinction. ..........

Going to a museum or art gallery to look at stuff is one thing. Taking it and doing with it as you please is quite another.

The point is, the author of the image retains ALL RIGHTS to the usage of his/her work, and you are violating those rights by posting the image here.

 

[Neiby]

I'm a noob here, so maybe I don't understand the distinction. ..........

Going to a museum or art gallery to look at stuff is one thing. Taking it and doing with it as you please is quite another.

The point is, the author of the image retains ALL RIGHTS to the usage of his/her work, and you are violating those rights by posting the image here.

From the perspective of the web, though, a link is a link. We're just talking about HTML tags that determine whether the image is displayed inline or not. In either case, it's still just a link. Do you see what I mean? It's not stealing. The original content is exactly where it was posted by the originator.

 

[Bend The Light]

I'm a noob here, so maybe I don't understand the distinction. ..........

Going to a museum or art gallery to look at stuff is one thing. Taking it and doing with it as you please is quite another.

The point is, the author of the image retains ALL RIGHTS to the usage of his/her work, and you are violating those rights by posting the image here.

From the perspective of the web, though, a link is a link. We're just talking about HTML tags that determine whether the image is displayed inline or not. In either case, it's still just a link. Do you see what I mean? It's not stealing. The original content is exactly where it was posted by the originator.

So if you copy and save an image on your computer, or display the copy in a website or forum, then that is ok? After all, the original is still there...

 

[Neiby]

Going to a museum or art gallery to look at stuff is one thing. Taking it and doing with it as you please is quite another.

The point is, the author of the image retains ALL RIGHTS to the usage of his/her work, and you are violating those rights by posting the image here.

From the perspective of the web, though, a link is a link. We're just talking about HTML tags that determine whether the image is displayed inline or not. In either case, it's still just a link. Do you see what I mean? It's not stealing. The original content is exactly where it was posted by the originator.

So if you copy and save an image on your computer, or display the copy in a website or forum, then that is ok? After all, the original is still there...

If you link to it, it's not a copy. You're displaying the original. It has not been copied to another location. If you copy and save it to your computer, a copy has been made. If you then upload that to a site then you have made a copy.

I see no practical difference between providing a link and displaying the image inline, because from a technical standpoint what happens under the hood is the same: a link is followed that retrieves a file from a web server. The exact same thing happens either way, but in one case the image is shown to the user without making them click the link. Displaying it inline does nothing but save the user a step. Displaying it inline is, in effect, clicking the link for the user. There is no difference between the two from the perspective of the hosting server.

 

[KmH]

Visit www.copyright.gov and study copyright law. It all becomes clear.

TPF has some amount of legal exposure to being sued for copyright infringement, though they have some protection under the OCILLA statues.

Just like any other kind of property, you cannot take it without the permission of the property owner.

 

[480sparky]

........ because from a technical standpoint what happens under the hood is the same: ..........

Far from it.

Let's say you do photography for a living....... you take AND SELL photos to feed your kids and pay your bills. Now, in order to promote your work, you have a website. Obviously, you post some of your images on your website.

Now, along comes someone who uses your work without either permission or paying you. Remember, this is work you did with the intention of selling, providing an income for yourself. Are you willing to just sit back and now say, "Well, gee, my original image is still on my web site..... no harm, no foul I guess". Or are you going to tell the person who is using your work without paying you to knock it off?

BTW, pirating music & videos is the same thing. Making copies is still illegal, as is using someone else's work without permission...... despite the fact the original is still in place and intact. This apparently is a concept many cannot comprehend.

 

[Neiby]

Visit www.copyright.gov and study copyright law. It all becomes clear.

TPF has some amount of legal exposure to being sued for copyright infringement, though they have some protection under the OCILLA statues.

Just like any other kind of property, you cannot take it without the permission of the property owner.

How is linking to something publicly viewable on the web considered taking? I'm speaking practically, not in terms of copyright. I realize the copyright situation is muddled. From a technical perspective, there is no difference between displaying the link inline or providing a link that requires the user to click on it. It is exactly the same thing. The content is never copied. In both cases, the user's own browser follows the link and displays the image in their browser.

Based on the crazy copyright environment, I totally understand TPF's policy against displaying other people's images inline. I have no quarrel with that at all. I'm just making the point that from a technical standpoint, there is no difference and I don't know why people care. If done in the manner that we're discussing, the image is not copied. It always stays on the server and remains under the control of the owner. It is not the same as downloading it and re-uploading it.

I want to be clear that I'm not arguing TPF's policy. I'm in 100% agreement with it.

 

[Neiby]

........ because from a technical standpoint what happens under the hood is the same: ..........

Far from it.

Let's say you do photography for a living....... you take AND SELL photos to feed your kids and pay your bills. Now, in order to promote your work, you have a website. Obviously, you post some of your images on your website.

Now, along comes someone who uses your work without either permission or paying you. Remember, this is work you did with the intention of selling, providing an income for yourself. Are you willing to just sit back and now say, "Well, gee, my original image is still on my web site..... no harm, no foul I guess". Or are you going to tell the person who is using your work without paying you to knock it off?

BTW, pirating music & videos is the same thing. Making copies is still illegal, as is using someone else's work without permission...... despite the fact the original is still in place and intact. This apparently is a concept many cannot comprehend.

Can you clarify what you mean when you talk about someone else using my work? What context are you talking about? I could not possibly care less if someone links to my images in a forum post, but I think you're talking about a different context.

 

[480sparky]

Can you clarify what you mean when you talk about someone else using my work? What context are you talking about? I could not possibly care less if someone links to my images in a forum post, but I think you're talking about a different context.

When you post someone else's work here, without their permission, you are using their work without compensating (paying) them for it. It doesn't matter whether you're profiting from it or just asking a question on a forum. You are violating their legal rights by doing so.

YOU may not care about what someone does with your work, but other people are trying to feed their kids, pay their bills, make the mortgage payments, etc. with their images. They have FULL and COMPLETE legal rights to their images...... how they are used, where they are used, when they are used, why they are used, and most importantly: who uses them........ and you have used them without either permission or compensation.

Now, if you had contacted the artist and asked permission to post them here, and you were given that permission (preferably in writing), all is fine.

 

[Tomasko]

Visit www.copyright.gov and study copyright law. It all becomes clear.

TPF has some amount of legal exposure to being sued for copyright infringement, though they have some protection under the OCILLA statues.

Just like any other kind of property, you cannot take it without the permission of the property owner.

How is linking to something publicly viewable on the web considered taking? I'm speaking practically, not in terms of copyright. I realize the copyright situation is muddled. From a technical perspective, there is no difference between displaying the link inline or providing a link that requires the user to click on it. It is exactly the same thing. The content is never copied. In both cases, the user's own browser follows the link and displays the image in their browser.

Based on the crazy copyright environment, I totally understand TPF's policy against displaying other people's images inline. I have no quarrel with that at all. I'm just making the point that from a technical standpoint, there is no difference and I don't know why people care. If done in the manner that we're discussing, the image is not copied. It always stays on the server and remains under the control of the owner. It is not the same as downloading it and re-uploading it.

I want to be clear that I'm not arguing TPF's policy. I'm in 100% agreement with it.

If you really want to have a technical dispute about this issue, fine. Anything you put on a webpage is considered to be a part of the content (from viewers point of view and as well from the point of view of a web search (google etc)). If you put a code on your page that displays an image, you're showing it to your viewers, you're presenting it to some audience. Doesn't matter if you have it saved on your hosting, if you're referring to some other server. You have put in on your page, it became part of your website. Got it? It violates copyright rights and rules of this forum.
If you put just a link, you're telling people to go there and look for themselves. It's a completely different thing to put a link and to show an actual image.

Maybe a different example would help...
Image you took a photo. Would it be the same for you, if somebody displays your photo on his website or only provide a link to your gallery?

 

[Neiby]

Can you clarify what you mean when you talk about someone else using my work? What context are you talking about? I could not possibly care less if someone links to my images in a forum post, but I think you're talking about a different context.

When you post someone else's work here, without their permission, you are using their work without compensating (paying) them for it. It doesn't matter whether you're profiting from it or just asking a question on a forum. You are violating their legal rights by doing so.

YOU may not care about what someone does with your work, but other people are trying to feed their kids, pay their bills, make the mortgage payments, etc. with their images.

I understand that. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm honestly trying to understand your viewpoint. I also don't think I'm being very clear about what I'm trying to say, either. Based on your replies, I'm not doing a good enough job of explaining myself.

 

[Neiby]

Visit www.copyright.gov and study copyright law. It all becomes clear.

TPF has some amount of legal exposure to being sued for copyright infringement, though they have some protection under the OCILLA statues.

Just like any other kind of property, you cannot take it without the permission of the property owner.

How is linking to something publicly viewable on the web considered taking? I'm speaking practically, not in terms of copyright. I realize the copyright situation is muddled. From a technical perspective, there is no difference between displaying the link inline or providing a link that requires the user to click on it. It is exactly the same thing. The content is never copied. In both cases, the user's own browser follows the link and displays the image in their browser.

Based on the crazy copyright environment, I totally understand TPF's policy against displaying other people's images inline. I have no quarrel with that at all. I'm just making the point that from a technical standpoint, there is no difference and I don't know why people care. If done in the manner that we're discussing, the image is not copied. It always stays on the server and remains under the control of the owner. It is not the same as downloading it and re-uploading it.

I want to be clear that I'm not arguing TPF's policy. I'm in 100% agreement with it.

If you really want to have a technical dispute about this issue, fine. Anything you put on a webpage is considered to be a part of the content (from viewers point of view and as well from the point of view of a web search (google etc)). If you put a code on your page that displays an image, you're showing it to your viewers, you're presenting it to some audience. Doesn't matter if you have it saved on your hosting, if you're referring to some other server. You have put in on your page, it became part of your website. Got it? It violates copyright rights and rules of this forum.
If you put just a link, you're telling people to go there and look for themselves. It's a completely different thing to put a link and to show an actual image.

I think we're coming at this from entirely different perspectives and just aren't going to agree. Best to leave it for now, I think. I wasn't intending to start any arguments. I'm new to photography, but I'm not new to web technology. I was really only commenting on the difficulty in differentiating between two actions that are fundamentally equivalent technologically and saying that one is okay and one is not, when under the hood they are identical.

I'm not arguing the rightness of either action. I would be quite irritated if someone were to use my images in their website, for example. But if they just link to my images, I'm still in control and can change them at any time. If someone is going to be a bad netizen and use imagery like that then they deserve what happens to them when I replace that image with something a little less appealing to them.

 

[480sparky]

I understand that. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm honestly trying to understand your viewpoint. I also don't think I'm being very clear about what I'm trying to say, either. Based on your replies, I'm not doing a good enough job of explaining myself.

OK, what part of this don't you understand?


Here's a photo I took:

It is mine. I took it, and I can do with it as I please. I have all the legal rights to it as provided by US copyright laws.

Now, this image was provided to another web site, along with permission to post it, and it appears here. They can legally post it because they have my permission to. But they cannot give anyone else permission to post / print / copy / reproduce it. They only have permission to post it on their site.

Now, if you were to post that image online somewhere, you do not have permission to unless I, the creator of that image, specifically tell you it's OK.

The reason I took that image is that I hope to be able to sell it sometime.... either in print form or digital rights. So, legally, for you to do anything with that image (post it here, make a print, copy it to your Photobucket account, etc.) would be violating my rights as the owner of this, which is known as intellectual property.

If you were to ask me permission to post this image on an internet forum, I am well within my rights to do any of the following:

1. Refuse your request.
2. Say it's hunky-dorey, go for it... I don't care.
3. Demand money in return for certain rights.


Should I choose #3, I would then enter into a written agreement allowing you to do one thing and one thing only with the image.... post it on an internet forum. You do not have any other rights to the image. You cannot print it, you cannot sell it, you cannot email it to all your friends..... You only have the right to post it on TPF. Should I find you did more than that, I have grounds for an infringement suit.

 

[Tomasko]

How is linking to something publicly viewable on the web considered taking? I'm speaking practically, not in terms of copyright. I realize the copyright situation is muddled. From a technical perspective, there is no difference between displaying the link inline or providing a link that requires the user to click on it. It is exactly the same thing. The content is never copied. In both cases, the user's own browser follows the link and displays the image in their browser.

Based on the crazy copyright environment, I totally understand TPF's policy against displaying other people's images inline. I have no quarrel with that at all. I'm just making the point that from a technical standpoint, there is no difference and I don't know why people care. If done in the manner that we're discussing, the image is not copied. It always stays on the server and remains under the control of the owner. It is not the same as downloading it and re-uploading it.

I want to be clear that I'm not arguing TPF's policy. I'm in 100% agreement with it.

If you really want to have a technical dispute about this issue, fine. Anything you put on a webpage is considered to be a part of the content (from viewers point of view and as well from the point of view of a web search (google etc)). If you put a code on your page that displays an image, you're showing it to your viewers, you're presenting it to some audience. Doesn't matter if you have it saved on your hosting, if you're referring to some other server. You have put in on your page, it became part of your website. Got it? It violates copyright rights and rules of this forum.
If you put just a link, you're telling people to go there and look for themselves. It's a completely different thing to put a link and to show an actual image.

I think we're coming at this from entirely different perspectives and just aren't going to agree. Best to leave it for now, I think. I wasn't intending to start any arguments. I'm new to photography, but I'm not new to web technology. I was really only commenting on the difficulty in differentiating between two actions that are fundamentally equivalent technologically and saying that one is okay and one is not, when under the hood they are identical.

I'm not arguing the rightness of either action. I would be quite irritated if someone were to use my images in their website, for example. But if they just link to my images, I'm still in control and can change them at any time. If someone is going to be a bad netizen and use imagery like that then they deserve what happens to them when I replace that image with something a little less appealing to them.

How can you say it's identical, when one situation leads to RENDER the actual image and other just provides a link to a gallery? I do have a business in IT, specifically I create websites for various clients, and it certainly isn't the same. It isn't the same for search engines, nor for web visitors.. No one cares where is the file hosted, but where and how you present it.

 

[Neiby]

Visit www.copyright.gov and study copyright law. It all becomes clear.

TPF has some amount of legal exposure to being sued for copyright infringement, though they have some protection under the OCILLA statues.

Just like any other kind of property, you cannot take it without the permission of the property owner.

I'm somewhat familiar with copyright law. The type of usage I was specifically referring to--using links as a reference in a forum discussion--would probably be considered fair use under copyright law. Regardless, since that isn't settled law, I fully support TPF's stance. I posted an inline image earlier in another thread and immediately changed it to a regular link to avoid any problems.