Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Copyright violation?


Sepiatone
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

The Sylvia Kristal thread has been locked due to some kind of copyright violation. At the request of the copyright holder!

 

 

It seems all kinds of people read these forums.

 

 

It also seems that many photos that made it onto these pages would ALSO have been copyrighted, but none of them locked down a thread.

 

 

I can't imagine what objection the copyright holder to anything connected to Ms. Kristal would have, as the image or text wouldn't have BEEN posted for financial gain or exploitation. I honestly thought it was a thread honoring her memory.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the first time I beleive this issue ever came up. Take 2 Advil before reading this, I already got a migraine. :(

 

http://vintagephoto.com/reference/copyrightarticle1.htm

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html

 

Like to add if the TCM Web Administrator knows ahead of time an image/photo is copyrighted without being notified by the person who holds the copyright, then it will be deleted.

 

Question is how does one know if a photo from Tinypic or other such sites are copyrighted material illegally used?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote}

>

> Question is how does one know if a photo from Tinypic or other such sites are copyrighted material illegally used?

 

 

 

I don't think there's a simple answer to that. It use to be that it was a fair assumption that professional photos were probably copyrighted and people's snapshots were not, but that may not be the case now. Anybody can take a photo and claim copyright. Often various sites will use photos without knowing their status and then just pull them if they learn they're copyrighted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my reading of the post by WebAdmin, it was the author/publisher of the obituary contained in the OP that made the complaint.

 

WebAdmin has expressed a 'zero tolerance' toward copy & pasting written materials from other websites into these Forums before.

 

As I understand it, if one wants to post written material from other sources, one must give attribution, a link and "quote' no more than four paragraphs of material. But my understanding of copyright may not be the most current guidelines for such use without being in violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've writ before, I'm not a big fan of photo use on this board, particularly in threads that have active discussions. It pushes the discussion too far away. And after all, we are all adept at the use of the Internet and can search around on our own, if we want to see something. I like some of the threads that are purely photographic -- like TopBilled's character actor thread, and I do understand that in an obit thread, it might make sense to post a photo of the deceased. But in general, if the copyright rule can be strongly enforced so that posters are less promiscuous with photo use, that's fine with me. I've been involved in performing arts production for decades, and I do understand the copyright rules, which are many and varied (though changeable!).

 

But... I didn't really explore the thread in question and so don't understand why just the photo in question could not have been removed rather than the whole thread.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}

> As I understand it, if one wants to post written material from other sources, one must give attribution, a link and "quote' no more than four paragraphs of material.

 

That agrees with the standard practices which most websites have adopted because it meets the laws' protections while allowing 'fair use' of material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion, based on my 12 years on the internet:

 

The author and fact gatherer of the original article might still be trying to sell the article to individual media, such as newspapers, magazines, and commercial websites. This is common with some free-lance writers. He probably has exclusive information and wants to sell it, and he doesn't want it posted anywhere for free.

 

Other free-lance writers like their stuff copied, because it adds to their resume and their Google-hits list.

 

Generally, its ok on message boards to post quotes and photos from other websites, as long as the quotes are short (with a link to the original source) and as long as the photos are small and their files are not printable as large-format photos.

 

For example, small Ansel Adams photos are generally ok to post on a message board, but large ones are not since large-format Ansel Adams photos are still being sold to collectors for a lot of money each. Small format photos on message boards are actually free advertising to the owners of the big-format copyrights.

 

A warning letter or email from a copyright holder to a website is generally the correct response when someone is still trying to sell the articles or photos, and the removal of the material in question (after receiving the warning email), is also the correct response.

 

Normally, what I do when I quote someones copyrighted article, is to quote only a small part of it, and give a link to it, with this notice posted above the link.

 

"MORE HERE:"

 

That is traditionally recognized as a case of fair use of a small portion of the copyrighted article, with credit going to the owner of the copyright (or, in this case, a link to the full copyrighted article).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks SanFin for what I consider a reasonable POV on this topic. All I would add is that if the unauthorized use of material is innocent and with no intent to make a profit than the correct and reasonable response by the owner of said material is that it be taken down. If the owner threatens a law suit then I could see name calling in that case.

 

I will admit my point of view is driven by the fact I write software for a living and, yea, I don't wish that software to be stolen. But it appears that these days one is a greedy capitalist for having this perspective.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote}

> But... I didn't really explore the thread in question and so don't understand why just the photo in question could not have been removed rather than the whole thread.

 

I have no 'inside information' concerning the action but I suspect the thread was locked because the original post in its entirety was a violation of existing law and this forum's Code of Conduct. It was not a matter of a photograph or two but an entire page of text and the basis for the entire thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: "Fair Use," I remember one of the lawyers I worked with on productions telling me that "Fair Use is a defense, not a right." Meaning I should not try to get away with using an excerpt from a play still in copyright, thinking that I had a "fair use" right.

 

There is of course tons of public domain material, in all formats, so long as one is clear as to what public domain means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}

> The author and fact gatherer of the original article might still be trying to sell the article to individual media, such as newspapers, magazines, and commercial websites.

 

I believe that is often the situation.

 

It appears to me that in this instance the copyright holder is BBC. They paid the author for the work and they recoup that expense by placement of advertising on their site. No one will visit their site if the articles are posted elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Sepiatone wrote:}{quote}

> It seems all kinds of people read these forums.

 

It may be that I am cynical but I doubt it was happenstance of an involved person reading these forums. Copyrights provide the basis of income for many and so they are proactive in searching for violations. Google allows searching for an entire paragraph of text by placing it within quotes in the search box.

 

> I can't imagine what objection the copyright holder to anything connected to Ms. Kristal would have, as the image or text wouldn't have BEEN posted for financial gain or exploitation.

 

It is the same as if a person steals your auto in that it does not matter whether they wished to profit from the theft by making it into a taxi or if they merely wished a joy ride. Posting an entire article deprived the copyright holder of hits to their site and that negatively affected their income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote}As I've writ before, I'm not a big fan of photo use on this board, particularly in threads that have active discussions. It pushes the discussion too far away. And after all, we are all adept at the use of the Internet and can search around on our own, if we want to see something. I like some of the threads that are purely photographic -- like TopBilled's character actor thread, and I do understand that in an obit thread, it might make sense to post a photo of the deceased. But in general, if the copyright rule can be strongly enforced so that posters are less promiscuous with photo use, that's fine with me. I've been involved in performing arts production for decades, and I do understand the copyright rules, which are many and varied (though changeable!).

>

> But... I didn't really explore the thread in question and so don't understand why just the photo in question could not have been removed rather than the whole thread.

>

The entire thread wasn't removed. It was just locked so that further comments can't be made in it.

I think it was copying the entire BBC article verbatim without attribution that caused the problems.

There was a controversy in the thread when I posted the link to the BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19990457

and the user who posted the entire article verbatim (that was deleted) complained about why I did that. BTW, I didn't know about this until just a short time ago, and I did not contact the copyright holder as a way of getting revenge on another user.

 

TCMAdmin posted this:

 

*The contents of this post have been deleted at the request of the copyright holder. Copying text and images from other websites without express permission is a violation of the DMCA and the code of conduct.*

 

And also this in the same thread:

 

*Do not copy and paste the verbatim text contents of other websites into these forums. You may post attributed quotes or links to other content. Do not post pictures for which you do not have express rights to use. If you don't know if you can use a picture, do not use it. Further violations of the DMCA cannot be tolerated.*

 

 

The "DMCA" referred to above is the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act and you can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

 

Someone else complained about me posting links too in that thread. But I find that posting links to sources helps avoid the problem above. And saying that, I'm not perfect.

I worked for a university for more than a decade and as a librarian for many years, and despite that, I do make mistakes. In the heat of the moment, for example, to help with a gag, I often forget to attribute or check copyright.

 

As for photos, it is true that many photos posted on the Internet are copyrighted, but many are also in the public domain and free to use.

I think most photos as Wiki are in the public domain, for example, I've posted photos of my own there and you have to give up copyright, I believe, to post them on Wiki with articles.

Anyway, sources of public domain photos are at this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain_image_resources

 

And the rules about posting photos in general are here:

http://www.infotoday.com/linkup/lud050111-goldsborough.shtml

 

Another article is here:

http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/copyright-fair-use-and-how-it-works-for-online-images/

 

Like I wrote above, I make mistakes and I often enjoy using photos to illustrate points or jokes.

Often the photos I use are in the public domain, but sometimes not. And I'll have to be more careful.

Swithin has chewed me out elsewhere about it...

 

It is tough, as if you want to make this into an academic-style message board, you would have to guard against plagiarism, libel, copyright infringement, and not using properly attributed sources to support pretty well everything you have to say on a subject.

It would tend to stifle comment and make it rather boring and cut back on the fun...

 

Oh well...

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Anyway, in this case it appears that the copyright holder discovered the infringement by some means and complained to TCM. Or, TCMAdmin decided it was a copyright infringement on his own, I have no idea?

 

Just a wakeup call to everyone on this message board, I guess.

 

The same sort of thing as we had about being nice and respectful of other users a while back when a user was summarily banned for being rude.

 

Oh well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. RM, I hope that I have never been so presumptuous as to "chew you out," though I have mentioned, often, my dislike of photos in general, because they distract from conversation. My favorite part of this website is the sparkling conversation aspect, whether we are agreeing or disagreeing about something, and I generally find photos a distraction from that.

 

But I was thinking of an irony recently. Forgive me for getting into a almost political subject, though it is film related. During the period that riots in the Middle East were caused by that anti-Islamic film, YouTube refused to take it down, because of freedom of speech issues. In fact, of course YouTube could have taken it down -- the US Constitution says that Congress isn't allowed to make a law prohibiting freedom of speech -- but a private entity -- YouTube -- could certainly have its own rules.

 

But the irony is that YouTube refused to take down a film that caused riots, and worse; but they would take down a copyrighted movie clip, or photo, or something like that, in a second, if it infringed on someone's economic rights! Seems strange to me that money talks; death and destruction do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote}

> But the irony is that YouTube refused to take down a film that caused riots, and worse; but they would take down a copyrighted movie clip, or photo, or something like that, in a second, if it infringed on someone's economic rights!

 

Both decisions support rights.

 

The copyright holder has the right to chose where and when their property is copied. To refuse to honor requests to remove material violates a copyright holder's rights.

 

To remove the other video you mentioned would have violated YouTube's position regarding individuals' right to free speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is a difference. YouTube is not Congress. Just as I can throw someone out of my house if I don't like what they say, YouTube can take down anything it wants. It is not Congress and has the right to edit and control its space as it sees fit. It may be their position to allow free speech, but there is no obligation for it to do so. The right to free speech in the US Constitution does not apply universally in this country. As you know, the moderator of these boards can take down anything he pleases.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}

> In this case of "stolen"?

 

I am sorry to say I do not understand your use of quotation marks.

 

Intellectual property has an owner who can chose when and where it is used. For it to be placed elsewhere without that choice is theft.

 

It is the same as if a taxi was taken from a company. Recovery soon after in good condition does not negate the loss of income which might have been earned had it not been used by an unauthorized person. Posting an entire article deprives the original site of hits and a reduced hit rate negatively affects their advertising return.

 

We would have no movies if there were not proper copyright laws to ensure creators the right to profit in some way by their work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right, that's sort of my point. So in the absence of a legal obligation, perhaps a moral one could have been applied: they could have said this is causing a great deal of distress, so we're taking it down, as we are allowed to.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Sepiatone wrote:}{quote}

> The Sylvia Kristal thread has been locked due to some kind of copyright violation. At the request of the copyright holder!

>

> It also seems that many photos that made it onto these pages would ALSO have been copyrighted, but none of them locked down a thread.

Michael's comment in that thread simply explained the reasons why the content was deleted by him.

He never stated it was at the request of any copyright holder. I saw nothing to indicate such a thing.

I also see no reason that thread...in which people were discussing their like of Sylvia Kristel and her films...had to be locked. Protected content removed, yes, but no reason to lock that thread.

 

Also a very good point regarding ANY number of photos in thousands of other threads here on the forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=SonOfUniversalHorror wrote:}{quote}

> Michael's comment in that thread simply explained the reasons why the content was deleted by him.

> He never stated it was at the request of any copyright holder. I saw nothing to indicate such a thing.

 

The very first line of his comment which replaced your original post of: Oct 18, 2012 9:02 AM is:

"The contents of this post have been deleted at the request of the copyright holder."

http://forums.tcm.com/thread.jspa?threadID=166788&start=15&tstart=15

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...