Use of images from RMweb

[martin_wynne]

Hi Andy,

 

Could you define "onward publication". Does that include hot-linking on RMweb to images uploaded to RMweb (which is within the law and not a copyright violation)?

 

Is simple image linking OK, given that the only difference is that a click is required first -- the same content is delivered to the same browser screen either way.

 

Or is it only acceptable to link to a full post or entire topic?

 

As Miss Prism suggests, we do I think need a full codified set of rules, if we can't assume that something uploaded to this community is for communal use on here.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[beast66606]

As we are going round in circles and as Andy has summarised nicely I don't see any point in addressing the specific issues raised again.

 

Like most things in life, there are those who are polite and ask, and those who assume (I have already given the context of this several times, I don't propose to go into it again, again again) - I'm not inclined to give further oxygen to those who feel the assumptions of free reuse are acceptable.

[Andy Y]

But that is not what was very clearly and pointedly stated in beast66606's post #144 above.

 

Andy, I am also sure you are aware that the image text in the quote is still visible by simply clicking on the text (image opens in a new tab). So while it stops multiple images appearing in the same topic it still breaks beast66606's rules on making his images visible without his permission - they are still potentially out of context and quoted without his permission.

 

No; linking back to a post does not re-use the image; quoting provides a link to the original image - they're not displayed within a link or the quote.

[The Stationmaster]

Hi Andy,

 

Could you define "onward publication". Does that include hot-linking on RMweb to images uploaded to RMweb (which is within the law and not a copyright violation)?

 

Is simple image linking OK, given that the only difference is that a click is required first -- the same content is delivered to the same browser screen either way.

 

Or is it only acceptable to link to a full post or entire topic?

 

As Miss Prism suggests, we do I think need a full codified set of rules, if we can't assume that something uploaded to this community is for communal use on here.

regards,

Martin.

I'm fairly naive with a lot of this 'puting stuff but I thought this was fairly clearly set out in Post No.1 in this thread - a mere 7 pages back. A link seems a simle thing to me - even I can do that, and do when it's worthwhile adding such a feature. Surely that's good enough and Andy's initial statement was clear enough (so I ticked it)?

[beast66606]

But that is not what was very clearly and pointedly stated in beast66606's post #144 above.

 

Andy, I am also sure you are aware that the image text in the quote is still visible by simply clicking on the text (image opens in a new tab). So while it stops multiple images appearing in the same topic it still breaks beast66606's rules on making his images visible without his permission - they are still potentially out of context and quoted without his permission.

 

If you care to read the thread you will see my thoughts, rather than interpreting them from a frustrated posting when someone leaps into an argument 3/4 through and thinks they are above reading what's gone before.

 

Quoting is not the same as reusing, but if some were to (for reasons beyond my ken) quote one of my postings from a completely different topic and use it to further a cause I do not support then I would ask Andy to remove it, exactly the same as if they used the photo - simples. (Andy may chose to NOT remove it of course)

[Andy Y]

Is simple image linking OK, given that the only difference is that a click is required first -- the same content is delivered to the same browser screen either way.

 

Or is it only acceptable to link to a full post or entire topic?

 

A link to an image is fine; it's not being reused. By onward publication I meant that it wasn't being used by anyone other than the original contributor on this site or any other.

 

The only possible clarification needed is to add the section on hotlinking to my OP. The subtitle to the topic was "it's not difficult to do the right thing" and it isn't. The rest has just been semantics to skirt around what should be common sense and common courtesy. The daft thing is that anyone debating the issue aren't the real culprits but if it stops someone nicking someone else's IP and passing it off as their own then all to the good. If they do that there's a whole raft of comments here that enable them to start to understand why it's wrong to do so.

[martin_wynne]

I'm fairly naive with a lot of this 'puting stuff but I thought this was fairly clearly set out in Post No.1 in this thread - a mere 7 pages back. A link seems a simple thing to me - even I can do that, and do when it's worthwhile adding such a feature.

 

Hi Mike,

 

There are two types of link and Andy's original statement:

 

If an image has previously been uploaded to RMweb and anyone other than the original contributor wishes to make use of that image within RMweb it should be linked to or its source and location acknowledged.

 

doesn't really make it clear.

 

This is the first type -- an image link: http://www.rmweb.co....20712_thumb.jpg

 

This is the second type -- a post link: http://www.rmweb.co....100#entry761144

 

Try clicking them to see.

 

It wasn't clear that the first type was acceptable, because in practice it is only one click different from hot-linking the image to display it without a click.

 

Andy has now said that for the purposes of RMweb there is a significant difference, namely an image link is ok, hot-linking without permission is not.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Kenton]

Perhaps it is only me (but somehow I think not) but I still do not understand the nuances here. What is more the "complaint" only seems to be with regard to beast66606's images and their reuse and quoting ON RMWeb (IMO and it seems Martin's very clearly exposed with a great deal of invective in post #144.

 

Obviously we should all avoid viewing beast66606's images (no one else seems to have the same issue) except for where he has posted them - and woe betide we link to them in any way without first gaining his approval.

 

Are we not yet at a point to lock this thread - after granting beast66606's the last comment? It will no doubt start up again in a couple of months on a new one, just in case we feel we missed something. The whole thing has drifted far from copyright issues and into total confucion - so back to where we all were before the topic started.

 

last post this topic.

[Andy Y]

Obviously we should all avoid viewing beast66606's images (no one else seems to have the same issue) except for where he has posted them - and woe betide we link to them in any way without first gaining his approval.

.... my italics.

 

No, that's incorrect. The point has been made about copying, re-publishing and hotlinking without consent.

 

Links are straightforward and permissible.

 

I will close this (as I'm at an event this weekend) and summarise as follows:

 

Any image (where the image is the property of that member) uploaded to RMweb remains the property of that contributor. Do not save, distribute or publish the image anywhere else without the proper consent of the original contributor. The original material owner would be within their rights to reclaim costs for re-publishing the material from whoever has breached copyright.

 

Any image (where the image is not the property of that member) uploaded to RMweb remains the property of the original photographer and should not be uploaded to RMweb without proper consent. If it is clear that the material has been copied from other sources (whether acknowledged or not) it may be be removed. If the image is not yours you should confirm whether you have permission to reproduce the image. Some sources (e.g. Wikipedia) permit re-publication but the appropriate Creative Commons Licence should be quoted so that any onward use is duly protected.

 

If an image has previously been uploaded to RMweb and anyone other than the original contributor wishes to make use of that image within RMweb it should be linked to or its source and location acknowledged.

 

Hotlinking your own images from elsewhere (as long as any external site's rules permit this) is fine.

 

Hotlinking someone else's images without consent should not be done and will be removed if seen or reported.

 

Anyone hotlinking to images on RMweb on other sites without the consent of the original contributor on RMweb is not permissible .

 

Abuse of RMweb facilities to purely or substantially host images for hotlinking to on other sites is bad form and would result in the removal of the material.

 

Image hosting sites such as Photobucket and Flickr have options to make the necessary codes and are made available for users to hotlink the content where consent of the contributor is given to do so.

[Andy Y]

Any image (where the image is the property of that member) uploaded to RMweb remains the property of that contributor. Do not save, distribute or publish the image anywhere else without the proper consent of the original contributor. The original material owner would be within their rights to reclaim costs for re-publishing the material from whoever has breached copyright.

 

Any image (where the image is not the property of that member) uploaded to RMweb remains the property of the original photographer and should not be uploaded to RMweb without proper consent. If it is clear that the material has been copied from other sources (whether acknowledged or not) it may be be removed. If the image is not yours you should confirm whether you have permission to reproduce the image. 

 

I have had to deal with several instances recently where people just do not get it; do not copy and post printed or online material for which you have not sought permission to reproduce. I will start removing members as well as images if there are repeated breaches.

[Grasshopper John]

Would that affect the 'whacky signs' and 'Things that make you smile' threads Andy, thats a can of worms, or am I having a dense moment.

 

Must be,   I dont know if its effect or affect

Edited September 5, 2018 by Grasshopper John

[Nile]

I have had to deal with several instances recently where people just do not get it; do not copy and post printed or online material for which you have not sought permission to reproduce. I will start removing members as well as images if there are repeated breaches.

 

And there is the problem. Copy and paste is all too easy and people get used to it.

This needs to be explained to people, and somewhere they will see it, not in a quiet corner of the site they are unlikely to visit.

[chuffinghell]

Guilty as charged and I can’t apologise enough

 

I let my enthusiasm take over my higher brain functions

[Oldddudders]

And there is the problem. Copy and paste is all too easy and people get used to it.

This needs to be explained to people, and somewhere they will see it, not in a quiet corner of the site they are unlikely to visit.

 

Neil - that depends on how you use RMweb. Those of us who use New Content see every post that goes onto every thread, even if we don't read them. People who come in via a particular thread do risk missing things like that. 

[Downendian]

Thanks for the reminder Andy,

I've seen my copyrighted images from my (our) diesel hydraulic thread appearing on Facebook hydraulic groups, obviously cut and paste and with no correspondence with me. I'm very happy for them to remain here but not too happy with them appearing elsewhere.

I've not done anything about it Facebook wise, but a polite reminder from the boss is helpful. I've only ever posted these images here as Facebook seems a bit of a free for all.

Neil

Edited September 5, 2018 by Downendian

[Nile]

That's really a matter for facebook to sort out (if they can be bothered). They might have found (and copied) those images by a Google search without ever visiting rmweb.

[Downendian]

Hi Neil, no most of the offending Facebook images cite RMweb as the source.

Neil