Watermarking
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> League Business
   

Would you like to see images on MAIL Watermarked "The Image (c) UserName"?
Yes
80%
 80%  [ 24 ]
No
3%
 3%  [ 1 ]
Undecided
13%
 13%  [ 4 ]
Other (Please leave comment below.)
3%
 3%  [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 30

Author Message

Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3615
Submissions: 149
Location: Germany, Herxheim

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:21 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

MusicMan wrote:
ZiLi wrote:
Contents are only free if marked as being such, not the other way around. That IS common knowledge. Who tells not having known about after got caught, is simply a liar searching


ZiLi I will admit that I never thought about this fact and there was never anybody that taught this to us. I only became aware of the fact after the issue came up here. I will admit that I never did anything that the topic would have come up, but the fact is I was never aware of the fact.


Uh. You never saw the facts displayed on the bottom of MAIL's main page, and (as I think) all displayed MAIL library pages? I somehow cannot believe...

Anyway: Even without explicit notification that a copyright exists, it is created automatically when a content is created, and is bound primarily to the original author's decisions.

(Advocatus diaboli mode on) So even the alteration of already published contents' display involves the consent of that author, even if the content itself remains unchanged. This may be achieved by an agreement to terms of use when publication is done, but if the wished alteration was not agreed upon while publication, such a change needs getting an explicit consent by EVERY author. So maybe even MAIL might be on the brink of a copyright violation if watermarking is activated now for already existing content - in good faith - but I had to re-read MAIL's terms carefully before knowing for sure. Has anybody already done this regarding MAIL having the allowance to do this at all?

-ZiLi-


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper MAl Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Ps Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hip

Human societies are like chain mail.
A single link will be worth nothing.
A chain is of use, but will break at the weakest link.
A weak weave will have the need to replace weak links.
A strong weave will survive even with weak links included.
-'me

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3064
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:45 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

ZiLi wrote:
So even the alteration of published contents' display involves the consent of that author, even if the content itself remains unchanged. This may be achieved by an agreement to terms of use when publication is done, but if the wished alteration was not agreed upon while publication, such a change needs getting an explicit consent by EVERY author. So maybe even MAIL might be on the brink of a copyright violation if watermarking is activated now for already existing content - in good faith - but I had to re-read MAIL's terms carefully before knowing for sure. Has anybody already done this regarding MAIL having the allowance to do this at all?


Incorrect.

The stated passage in the Charter is:
I hereby grant Maille Artisans International League rights of publication of my work on the M.A.I.L. site. In cases of re-publication, the aforementioned M.A.I.L. must recieve my prior permission and in said re-publication provide me with credit for my work.

In granting the right of publication the method for publication is limited only by the statement following.
In this case: "publication of my work on the M.A.I.L. site" includes several things:
Display within a weave listing, the search results page and a user profile, for weave images. As well as a hotlink to a fullsize image.
Display within an article, the search results page and a user profile, for article images.
Display within Gallery Categories, and a user profiles for Gallery images. As well as a hotlink to a fullsize image.
An overlay of a watermark establishing the ownership of the image, credited in full to the original author, in no way breaches, or even comes close to breaching copyright law. And if anything, is more in line with our Charter guidelines than it is out of line.

Such a change does not, in fact, require the consent of any existing authors, and no court in the world would consider such a move a copyright violation.
If I wanted to impliment such a system today, without anyones consent, I could, and it would fly free and clear of copyright law.
That is not my intention, nor my desire... I am merely here to offer options, and engage a discussion.


THAT BEING SAID... This only further outlines the need for an updated Submission Agreement.



Joined: March 27, 2009
Posts: 1015
Submissions: 4
Location: Southeastern Minnesota

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:04 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

ZiLi wrote:
That seems ridiculous for me. Contents are only free if marked as being such, not the other way around. That IS common knowledge.

I disagree. Those of us at M.A.I.L. have had quite a bit of experience with this and so we probably know more than many. I know when I was first becoming more active on the internet, I had no knowledge of copyrights or the fact that you really aren't supposed to use pictures without someone's permission. I know a great many other people who shared a similar ignorance. Assuming that claimed ignorance is merely an attempt to get out of the consequences seems a little rash, to me. I'm sure there are those who fall into that category. I am also sure there are those who are truly ignorant, just as I once was.

I have some knowledge of copyright now, yes. But I only obtained that after research, asking questions, and doing some more research on top of that. Even still, whenever a copyright issue comes up here, I still end up learning something new about copyrights. I have also seen several questions on these forums about it. It does not seem realistic to expect that everyone should have this knowledge automatically. If it was common knowledge, as you say, then these discussions should be unnecessary, should they not?

In theory, the script at the bottom of the page should be enough to inform people that the content is copyright. However, once the image has left the site, that script is no longer attached. The watermark, in theory, would travel with the image and continue to convey that that image is the property of another. Also, for those that don't bother to read legalese on the bottom of a page, the watermark will enforce that the image is not free game.

Joined: August 10, 2005
Posts: 7095
Submissions: 337
Location: UK

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:24 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

In my experience it is images form the weaves library that seem to be taken and used most of all. I also think that most people believe that an image on the internet is free game and can be used as they wish. Many times I've heard/read "I didn't see the copyright notice".


Maille Code
V2.0 T7.3 R5.4 Ep Feur MAg/Cu Wm$ Cbjpw$ G0.5/3.0 I1.5/12.0 N322.150 Pajs Dacdjsw Xa7g631p4t24w64 S88 Hipsu

Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3615
Submissions: 149
Location: Germany, Herxheim

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:41 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

@DL: Well, I am fully aware about the fact that MAIL's charter/terms of use want to be obedient to laws, and I am aware that the proposed change in display style even tries to enforce this obedience by using technical means. That's good intent, obviously. But I'm simply not sure, whether the terms used suffice to allow an ALTERED PRESENTATION of these user contents, even if the contents themselves are not changed at all. I guess they suffice, but am not yet convinced they really do, even if our actions are done with best intentions. I simply see it as my obligation to guess, whether there are unintended consequences of our actions, before we enter a trap. Not more not less.

@Vorondil: More than once I saw lacking knowledge being used as justification, when it in fact had been consciuos ignorance. I know, that often people really do not know the consequences, but I also know that more than once people were punished for doing things with best intent, but were wrong, nevertheless. But that's life. Who acts, should act consciously, and not rely or even depend on someone else taking care, if not necessary.


In fact I do NOT oppose watermarking at all, but I propose to decide consciously, and to clear possible doubts, and to look out for traps we could possibly step into. So I cast my 'undecided' vote, and tried to dig a bit deeper into the matter, to find possible traps. And I'm NOT YET sure, that the path is really free of obstacles or potholes.

-ZiLi-


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper MAl Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Ps Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hip

Human societies are like chain mail.
A single link will be worth nothing.
A chain is of use, but will break at the weakest link.
A weak weave will have the need to replace weak links.
A strong weave will survive even with weak links included.
-'me

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3064
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:49 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

ZiLi wrote:
@DL: Well, I am fully aware about the fact that MAIL's charter/terms of use want to be obedient to laws, and I am aware that the proposed change in display style even tries to enforce this obedience by using technical means. That's good intent, obviously. But I'm simply not sure, whether the terms used suffice to allow an ALTERED PRESENTATION of these user contents, even if the contents themselves are not changed at all. I guess they suffice, but am not yet convinced they really do, even if our actions are done with best intentions. I simply see it as my obligation to guess, whether there are unintended consequences of our actions, before we enter a trap. Not more not less.


The terms used imply NO presentation style, except to state that the picture be used on the "M.A.I.L. Website"...

IE: We cannot use images without permission in Brochures to hand out at Pennsic; We can't make banner ads using them, and post them on another site (Say, MWW); We can't put together a YouTube video tutorial of Euro 4 using Dave Austin's Article Images with someone speaking over top.

What we can do, is display them on the MAIL website, and take every reasonable precaution to protect the work of our membership.



Joined: April 02, 2008
Posts: 2246
Submissions: 42
Location: Lincoln, NE

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:57 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

ZiLi wrote:

Uh. You never saw the facts displayed on the bottom of MAIL's main page, and (as I think) all displayed MAIL library pages? I somehow cannot believe...


This I did see (after a while on the site) and started to understand and become aware of this aspect of copyright.

ZiLi wrote:
Anyway: Even without explicit notification that a copyright exists, it is created automatically when a content is created, and is bound primarily to the original author's decisions.


This is what I was unaware of.


Once you stop learning, you stop living, so...
Ask questions.
Try new things.
Share what you know.

MailleCode V2.0 T5.3 R4.4 E0.0 Feur MFe.sBr Wg Cwb G.7-5.1 I3.1-11 N20.5 Pj Dcdjt Xa1w2 S08

Joined: July 29, 2009
Posts: 42
Submissions: 2
Location: Regina, sk Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:22 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Zili:

if i wanted to steal some pictures from here i could either just do some image searches on google and take them without ever viewing the site or click through here and never see the bottom of the page. even if i did see the bottom of the page it would probably get as much thought as a terms of service.

as far as common knowledge goes you and the people you are around might know about it but that doesn't mean everyone will. if that concerns your work then you might expect people to know it. "7018's stay in an oven until they get used." that probably doesn't mean much to most people but to me and the people i've worked, gone to school, and hung around with for the last year it's common knowledge. everyone in Canada knows the leafs suck (some are just in denial). but it probably doesn't mean much in other countries.

where i'm from students are taught to take images for projects and reports from google searches. they aren't informed that it isn't legal.

i think watermarks will work. if you can't crop a water mark out you probably don't know about copyright laws. and even if you can a reminder right on what they are trying to take will deter some people. i know a water mark or some chinese sub titles have turned me away from watching a movie before.

Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3615
Submissions: 149
Location: Germany, Herxheim

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:53 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

DL: I see that we can present the images here, and I don't see a definition where the limit of allowed alteration is. So I see a possible trap that should be 'de-fused'.

kylediv: About google there is only one note by me - most times they wander directly at the rim of legality - and more often than once they crossed the border. So using google's habits as possible justification seems not really appropriate.

I'd say, we should start a test run, and look how it works out, and how the 'crowd' reacts. But in the long run, the allowances and limits of content display by MAIL should be imho defined and incorporated in our ruleset.

-ZiLi-


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper MAl Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Ps Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hip

Human societies are like chain mail.
A single link will be worth nothing.
A chain is of use, but will break at the weakest link.
A weak weave will have the need to replace weak links.
A strong weave will survive even with weak links included.
-'me

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3064
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jul 25, 2010 2:06 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

ZiLi wrote:
But in the long run, the allowances and limits of content display by MAIL should be imho defined and incorporated in our ruleset.


See:
Daemon_Lotos wrote:
THAT BEING SAID... This only further outlines the need for an updated Submission Agreement.



An improved content policy is also on the list.



Joined: March 27, 2009
Posts: 1015
Submissions: 4
Location: Southeastern Minnesota

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:27 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

ZiLi wrote:
So using google's habits as possible justification seems not really appropriate.

Not Google's habits, per se, but the fact that people can access the image without ever visiting the site. If they do not visit the site, they cannot see the copyright notice on the bottom of the page. This seems, to me, like a very good reason to use watermarks on images.

Joined: July 17, 2009
Posts: 451
Submissions: 76
Location: Denver, Colorado

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:33 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I certainly share these concerns. Problem is, many people don't understand what copyright actually means. So marking images probably isn't really going to help.

Maybe a better idea would be to put some prominent links up to direct uninformed people to plain language explanation of how copyright works, what it is, and is not. I think this link should be front and center on our home page, and that there should be a hotlink to it any place the word "copyright" appears for our images.

There will always be a number of people who know what copyright is, and choose to violate it. But I think there is a large number of people who could learn more and would choose to honor it to some degree.

In short, I am in favor of education rather than watermarking.



Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3615
Submissions: 149
Location: Germany, Herxheim

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:34 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Google's habits may be discussed elsewhere, as they use the 'archive' argument to justify their use of foreign content, and to circumvent some limitations given in the laws.

But it's a matter of obedience of laws, nevertheless. Finding and seeing an image, and using for own needs is fine. But in the instant, foreign content is republished, the one who republishes is OBLIGATED to follow that content's ways to the original source, to learn about the needed action to be allowed a republication. Who neglects this, simply places her/himself in danger of violating law. It's common sense to attempt acquiring info about a possible owner, if one finds something seemingly ownerless.

Nobody (me included) always follows laws to full extent, or would be even able to do so, as it's simply impossible to know all laws to this full extent, but in the moment one has knowledge about existance of laws concerning a specific matter that could be part of considerations, one has to (try to) get information about the laws' content and implications, and at minimum has to try to follow the rules given. So it should be clear that 'purposeful ignorance' is the wrong way.

-ZiLi-


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper MAl Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Ps Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hip

Human societies are like chain mail.
A single link will be worth nothing.
A chain is of use, but will break at the weakest link.
A weak weave will have the need to replace weak links.
A strong weave will survive even with weak links included.
-'me

Joined: August 10, 2005
Posts: 7095
Submissions: 337
Location: UK

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:59 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Daemon_Lotos wrote:
...We can't make banner ads using them, and post them on another site (Say, MWW)...


DL, has this happened, if so please tell me so I can deal with it?


Maille Code
V2.0 T7.3 R5.4 Ep Feur MAg/Cu Wm$ Cbjpw$ G0.5/3.0 I1.5/12.0 N322.150 Pajs Dacdjsw Xa7g631p4t24w64 S88 Hipsu

Joined: March 27, 2009
Posts: 1015
Submissions: 4
Location: Southeastern Minnesota

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:48 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Pfeiffer wrote:
In short, I am in favor of education rather than watermarking.

Why can't we do both? Prominent links may help our members or those who choose to visit our site and click on the links. But for those who might get the image without visiting us, these links/info won't give the same benefit. I don't see why this needs to be an either/or situation.

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 2 of 3. Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:18 am
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> League Business
Display posts from previous: