Sponsor | |
|
Sponsor |  AlternaDad | May 6, 7:41pm | Yup. I link pics with an href back to the originating site whenever possible and I usually host whatever image I want to use at another site as to avoid any bandwidth issues. Plus a hosed image will remain even if the original image changes address.
MJBrutis and I only started arguing when I said I disagreed with his claim that breaking the law is always a big deal. It's not, especially when it comes to fair use blogging of images on the intarwebs. With a link back to the original site there is little to worry about. |
|
|
|  walwyn | May 19, 1:01pm | #321
If you think I might be an 'angry guy' you've seen nothing. Heaven forbid that you ever get the flickr cabal descend with pitchforks and firebrands.
As my stuff is licensed as CC-NC anyone who wants to photoblog my stuff here are welcome to do so. That won't be the same if they put them on a commercial blog, or one that is advert-rich, and it is certainly not the case with ARR images.
The issue of photoblogging by stumbleupon users come up regularly in the flickr forums, mostly by people that do not appreciate the activity.
Fortunately for most of you the referral logs from stumbleupon are mostly spam, the data is rewritten so that someone ends up at a SU advert rather than the refering page,
stumbleupon.com/refer.php [stumbleupon.com/refer.php]
lolly180tina/2497038708/
and 3 out of 4 referrals from SU are bogus. As such it is difficult for the person who has had their stuff ripped off to determine exactly where the referral is coming from.
#322
You do not have any 'fair-use' in photo blogging. The idea that by doing it you drive traffic to some one's site is baloney very few photo blogs result in some one clicking through to the site where the image came from.
Additionally when you copy the image off to some hosting site you have effectively ripped the image from its original context. This is particularly egregious as the copyright owner has then effectively lost all control over the image. Whilst the image was under the control of its owner they could delete or rename it to break any links if they were unhappy about it being reused. For example if someone finds their image being used on some hate site.
Additionally by rehosting the image you may well have removed any copyright information, which with the current Orphan Works bill in the US congress could result in the image creator having to engage in costly legal expenses to reclaim their work, as you have effectively Orphaned it.
Note that if the image happens to be registered with the copyright office a photographer can claim statutory damages which start at $750 per image and rise to $150,000 per image. Also if you have stripped out any copyright information from the file then there are penalties starting at $2,500 per image and rising to $25,000. |
|
|
Sponsor | | ntltrmllgnc | May 19, 1:16pm | context is for narcissists. context is the meat of speech and therefore open territory.
if I put the box for a product with all the graphics under a pile of dog poo there isn't anything anyone can do to stop me. |
|
|
| | walwyn | May 19, 1:46pm | | As you own the box and you can do what you like with that. What you can't do is copy the graphics on the box and put that under a pile of dog poo. |
|
|
Sponsor | | blueflameleo | May 19, 1:52pm | | My pictures don't show up when i right click on them from flicker what can i do to fix this? |
|
|
Sponsor | |
|
Sponsor | | imorgen | May 19, 6:21pm | 323 - Well I really do wonder why I should be singled out so readily. There are sites constantly being thumbed up which contain little or nothing but stolen, uncredited images - I thumb them down daily. Those people are actually making money from and being praised for copypasting someone else's work with no context. As an artist I would rather see my work credited than not.
Using an image host saves the original site's bandwidth and yes, if the original's URL changes, the image remains. Unfortunately some people don't bother to credit the artist. Not guilty. |
|
|
Sponsor | | digits | May 19, 7:09pm | 326. Use a screen capture and capture the image.
328. Amen. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Karolinger | May 19, 7:52pm | | 326: Why can't you just login to flickr and download them? |
|
|
|
StumbleUpon → Discussion![[eikongraphia.com/wordpress/wp-content/Warhol%201.jpg]](http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/www.eikongraphia.com/wordpress/wp-content/Warhol%2525201.jpg){kind=link}