rosamundi Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 (edited) OK, you all know my thoughts about hotlinking (it's bad, it's wrong, it's theft). Now you get to hear my thoughts about copyright, because I am really seriously worried that some peoples' actions are going to land Phatmass with a legal bill it can't pay, and get the site closed down. Taking the Nuns' Picture Thread as an example, a number of photographs are linked directly to the Phatmass website without the original photographer’s clear permission, or them being directly credited at the bottom of the post. This copy constitutes copyright infringement. Equally, in certain jurisdictions where Phatmass is viewed, it also violates [i]droit moral[/i] of the photographers, including their rights to have the work attributed to them and not to have their work altered without their consent. Even if a website or a photograph does not explicitly have © The Sisters of Whatever or another copyright notice posted on it, the author of the photograph is still in possession of all aspects of copyright pertaining to that work. Either by right-clicking, saving an image, and uploading it to another hosting site, or hotlinking from the Sisters' website, you are making an illegal copy of the image, you are breaking the law and laying Phatmass open to action for breach of copyright. By pictures being linked to directly from a website (for instance, a monastery or convent website which has pictures of their Sisters posted), the thread on Phatmass is using some of the site owner’s bandwidth every time the thread on Phatmass is opened, without the site owner’s knowledge or consent. Since most hosting packages have a limit on bandwidth, and everything over that limit is charged to the site owner, Phatmass is potentially costing the site owners money, particularly in view of how many views the nuns’ picture thread gets – this is the most obvious thread, but there are other threads which use photographs in a similar way. Bandwidth leeching and reproducing copyright images without consent of the copyright holder is just as much theft as breaking into a church and stealing the poor box. In the USA, the statutory damages for copyright violation are up to USD$150,000 per copy. The “Nuns Picture Thread” has, at the time of writing, approximately 500 pictures on it, each of which opens up potential liability of $150,000 times 500 pictures = $75,000,000 (that's seventy five million US dollars). This is a significant sum by any definition. Admittedly, it is unlikely that everyone whose images have been posted without permission would decide to sue, particularly as the Religious of my acquaintance aren't, as a rule, overly litigious, but some of those images have been linked to from commercial websites. Commercial websites tend to have lawyers. I appreciate that the members are linking with the best of intentions, to widen awareness of various orders and to foster vocations, but Phatmass both as a whole and as individual members are undertaking potential serious liability at law with regards to some of the things that are copied onto the thread. In addition, as religious vocations are explored, it is important to maintain a strong moral stance against theft of others’ property and not encourage theft, whether well intentioned or otherwise. You must only reproduce images on here if you are the [i]original[/i] taker of the picture, [i]or[/i] you have the explicit permission of the original copyright holder to reproduce the image (in which case, you need to show that somehow, and post a link to the originating site). Otherwise, it is far safer to just post a link to the originating page. Edited October 22, 2007 by rosamundi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmaD2006 Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 (edited) Rather than posting this to all in vocation station -- I strongly suggest bringing this up with the regulators and Dust. It is more of a policy issue ... and any decision as to what can be posted and what shouldn't be is really up to them. I understand where you're coming from -- but again any change of policy or new policy needs to come from them. God bless you -- Carmen Edited October 22, 2007 by cmariadiaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abercius24 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 This is very true. Bandwidth theft is an ethical issue and a pain-in-the-neck for webmasters. If you want to post a picture in a thread, its best to obtain a copy for yourself and put it onto your own image hosting service like photobucket.com or freeimagehosting.net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosamundi Posted October 23, 2007 Author Share Posted October 23, 2007 [quote name='cmariadiaz' post='1407467' date='Oct 23 2007, 01:35 AM']Rather than posting this to all in vocation station -- I strongly suggest bringing this up with the regulators and Dust. It is more of a policy issue ... and any decision as to what can be posted and what shouldn't be is really up to them.[/quote] I have done. As yet, nothing has happened and further breaches of the law have taken place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosamundi Posted October 23, 2007 Author Share Posted October 23, 2007 [quote name='abercius24' post='1407532' date='Oct 23 2007, 02:42 AM']If you want to post a picture in a thread, its best to obtain a copy for yourself and put it onto your own image hosting service like photobucket.com or freeimagehosting.net.[/quote] Only do this if you have the permission of the original copyright holder, otherwise it is a breach of their copyright and breaking the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemma Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 It has been my experience as a webmaster that those sites dedicated to vocations usually have no problem with links--or even pix for that matter. If I ask permission for a pic, there's usually the phrase "and give us a link, if possible" attached at the end. In such a case, the pic is more of a "teaser," and the whole picture of the website isn't going to be appreciated if the link isn't given. Churches, religious orders, seminaries, etc., if they're being PROMOTED, they have no problem with links and pix being used. In fact, I've almost been begged to have links added. Individual photogs, OTOH, can get rather bent out of shape over it. If the site is making money off of a pic or pix, then that is usually seen as copyright infringement. However, a non-profit or individual site simply trying to promote vocations--an informational clearinghouse--is usually left legally unmolested. What dUSt and the moderators could do is produce a sticky thread listing those links whose works are being used--esp. the one with "esprit" in the name which EJames2 utilizes frequently. My 2 cents. Blessings, Gemma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosamundi Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 [quote name='Gemma' post='1408407' date='Oct 24 2007, 02:04 PM']Individual photogs, OTOH, can get rather bent out of shape over it. If the site is making money off of a pic or pix, then that is usually seen as copyright infringement. However, a non-profit or individual site simply trying to promote vocations--an informational clearinghouse--is usually left legally unmolested.[/quote] I'd get "bent out of shape" if my means of making a living was being plastered all over the web without my permission or any attempt to pay for it, especially if the way you were doing it (via a hotlink) was actually costing me money. If you have permission from the original copyright holder, or they have assigned their work a particular [url="http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/"]Creative[/url] [url="http://creativecommons.org/"]Commons[/url] licence, and you reproduce their work within the terms of the licence, it's fine. If you [i]don't[/i] have permission, it's not fine, and you should stick to posting hyperlinks to images or text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeniteAdoremus Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I'd like to back Rosamundi by saying that however trivial it may seem to some, she's [b]absolutely right[/b]. Gemma is right in pointing out that a majority of the sites will be happy for the free advertisement, but that doesn't change that we're putting Phatmass at a really existing risk that can be easily avoided. In somewhat* comparable matters, the Church tends to teach abstinence *term used [i]very[/i] loosely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemma Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 [quote name='rosamundi' post='1408412' date='Oct 24 2007, 09:39 AM']I'd get "bent out of shape" if my means of making a living was being plastered all over the web without my permission or any attempt to pay for it, especially if the way you were doing it (via a hotlink) was actually costing me money. If you have permission from the original copyright holder, or they have assigned their work a particular [url="http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/"]Creative[/url] [url="http://creativecommons.org/"]Commons[/url] licence, and you reproduce their work within the terms of the licence, it's fine. If you [i]don't[/i] have permission, it's not fine, and you should stick to posting hyperlinks to images or text.[/quote] If this is anything like book publishing, then Phatmass would probably receive a 'cease and desist' letter from the photog's attorney(s), and be given 30 days to remove the materials. Only if Phatmass doesn't cooperate will there be costly legal problems (I think). But, then again, I'm not sure if the same rules apply to photographic internet media as they do to "regular" publishing. I have a LOT of works-in-progress, and I am doing my own legal legwork to get written permissions from parties who will be involved in said works. Not only will this lend more credibility to the work, but it also sends out word-of-mouth advertising when the project finally gets published. Do you happen to be a photog whose work has been used here without your permission? Blessings, Gemma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemma Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 [quote name='rosamundi' post='1408412' date='Oct 24 2007, 09:39 AM']I'd get "bent out of shape" if my means of making a living was being plastered all over the web without my permission or any attempt to pay for it, especially if the way you were doing it (via a hotlink) was actually costing me money. If you have permission from the original copyright holder, or they have assigned their work a particular [url="http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/"]Creative[/url] [url="http://creativecommons.org/"]Commons[/url] licence, and you reproduce their work within the terms of the licence, it's fine. If you [i]don't[/i] have permission, it's not fine, and you should stick to posting hyperlinks to images or text.[/quote] If this is anything like book publishing, then Phatmass would probably receive a 'cease and desist' letter from the photog's attorney(s), and be given 30 days to remove the materials. Only if Phatmass doesn't cooperate will there be costly legal problems (I think). But, then again, I'm not sure if the same rules apply to photographic internet media as they do to "regular" publishing. I have a LOT of works-in-progress, and I am doing my own legal legwork to get written permissions from parties who will be involved in said works. Not only will this lend more credibility to the work, but it also sends out word-of-mouth advertising when the project finally gets published. Do you happen to be a photog whose work has been used here without your permission? Blessings, Gemma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemma Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Sorry about the double post. When I tried posting the first time, I got an error page. I found PM's homepage, and it indicated that my post had not been the last, so I clicked the "back" button, clicked "add reply" and well, got a double post. Sorry. Blessings, Gemma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosamundi Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 [quote name='Gemma' post='1408502' date='Oct 24 2007, 06:13 PM']If this is anything like book publishing, then Phatmass would probably receive a 'cease and desist' letter from the photog's attorney(s), and be given 30 days to remove the materials. Only if Phatmass doesn't cooperate will there be costly legal problems (I think).[/quote] roughly, that is how it would go - the timescale may be different, you have to give a "reasonable" time in which to remove the materials. "Reasonable" varies by jurisdiction. [quote]But, then again, I'm not sure if the same rules apply to photographic internet media as they do to "regular" publishing. I have a LOT of works-in-progress, and I am doing my own legal legwork to get written permissions from parties who will be involved in said works. Not only will this lend more credibility to the work, but it also sends out word-of-mouth advertising when the project finally gets published.[/quote] Yes they do - copyright is copyright is copyright. It is somewhat more complicated with internet publishing, but just because it's been published on the internet doesn't mean the author has given up any of their rights with regards to fair use, attribution, and permission. [quote]Do you happen to be a photog whose work has been used here without your permission?[/quote] No. But I know someone whose work has been used here without his permission, and I am amazed at the frankly [i]laissez faire[/i] attitude that some people here take with regard to what is, ultimately, theft of other people's property. Just because you can't touch intellectual property in the same way you can touch, say, the contents of the church's poor box, it is still property and taking it and using it without permission is still theft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemma Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 [quote name='rosamundi' post='1408510' date='Oct 24 2007, 01:24 PM']No. But I know someone whose work has been used here without his permission[/quote] Well, then it is up to him to contact PM's owners, and take up the issue with them. It would be inappropriate for the two of us to get involved. The artist should be the one to breach the subject with the site owner. We all need to be more aware of these things. The pix I posted for the 'discernment colony' thread were basically "public domain" from the US government. If I want folks to see anything, I give the entire link, or, if it's on my main site, I send them there. Blessings, Gemma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosamundi Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 [quote name='Gemma' post='1408657' date='Oct 24 2007, 10:04 PM']Well, then it is up to him to contact PM's owners, and take up the issue with them. It would be inappropriate for the two of us to get involved. The artist should be the one to breach the subject with the site owner.[/quote] He's one of those "not particularly litigious" Religious, so it's unlikely that he'll get involved. However, just because he won't get involved is no reason for people who see (a) illegal and (b) immoral activity taking place not to step up to the plate and call people on their behaviour. [quote]We all need to be more aware of these things. The pix I posted for the 'discernment colony' thread were basically "public domain" from the US government. If I want folks to see anything, I give the entire link, or, if it's on my main site, I send them there.[/quote] If only everyone behaved like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 [quote name='rosamundi' post='1407761' date='Oct 23 2007, 12:58 AM']I have done. As yet, nothing has happened and further breaches of the law have taken place.[/quote] regulators are sort of like the Church, we move slowly on issues. give us a break, please. there's like 9 mods and it's not like we're all on at the same time. we'll need to discuss this. thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts