Copyright Issues / Fair Use Policy

[mol]

Hi all. We have had some concerns regarding copyright violations and since we are growing by leaps and bounds it is probably best to law down the law (so to speak).

Below is our Fair Use policy. Whenever a post is in violation of this fair use policy it will be edited! Thats important folks...so I will repeat it. It will be edited. Just follow the fair usage guidelines and clue in new members, etc and everything should be fine. Thanks for your cooperation everyone!


Mystic Wicks Fair Use Policy

For prose, fair use is generally 3% of the total length of the work. That's
a *very* small amount of the original work. Furthermore, you need to be
reproducing the material in order to comment on it, or to support an
argument, etc. For a book length work, 3% is generally about 200 words.
Consider how much less it is for essays and articles.

For poetry or songs: fair use does not apply. You may not reproduce any part
of a song or poem without the copyright holder's consent.

Public domain: If the piece in question is in the public domain, then then
entire piece is fair use--you can do with it wha tyou like. A work is only
considered in the public domain if the author has written, "This work is
freely given to the public domain" or something similar. The statement must
be explicitly stated by the author on the piece itself.

However, if the author has been dead for 70 years, his works are considered
in the public domain, unless the copyright has been renewed by another group
or individual. (THat doesn't happen very often)

A work is *not* in the public domain just because it is on the internet,
posted to a newsgroup, posted to a bulletin board, etc. All written material
retains its copyright unless the author gives that copyright away.

What this means, folks, is that its not okay to post entire news articles,
for example, poetry or songs written by other people, excerpts of a length
that violate fair use, or entire essays. Furthermore, it means that its not
ok to post these things "As long as you credit your source". That's a myth.
If you don't have permission from the copyright holder himself, you may not
reproduce it on this board (or anywhere in public). Period.

Regarding graphics: If you do not have the artists permission and the image is NOT in the public domain then you may not use any portion of tha image. Get permission FIRST or you will be asked to remove the image.

[Elida]

Can I suggest something?

That this be re-posted each month or every three months so that New Members like myself so they know what they can do and what's they can't.

[Melysande]

I should have read this first. Oy. But at least I won't make that faux pas again. :)

[WandererInGray]

*nods* It's good to know.
Don't worry about it Mel, I know I'm so used to reproducing song lyrics and the like that I'll probably have to remind myself (and be reminded) several times!

[Lavender]

Good time for a bump here! :D

[IsisErin]

~bump~

[Phoenix Blue]

Bump with an added note: As of a year or so ago, copyright protection was extended to author's lifetime plus 70 years.

[Flutterby_whispers]

Good stuff to know ~ thanks for posting this :)

[WynterWynd]

.....and a bump for all:)

[Xentor]

bumpity bump! Read, people, read!

[Scarlet]

Ah, good to know! *bump*

[Amethyst Rose]

So how does this apply to images and art used in banners and avatars?

Inquiring minds want to know....

http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?p=1183528&posted=1#post1183528

[Nantonos]

Following that thread on copyright and images, and particularly in view of some of the erroneous statements expressed there - "its only a forum, it doesn't matter" "as long as the artist is unknown you are okay" "its only graphics" "its non-commercial so not a violation" I would like to see clear guidance on image re-use in the copyright guidelines. People are much more likely to read the offical guidelines than dig up and digest discussion in an old thread.

Its clear that some people have tracked down the artist, asked for and got permission to use the image either standalone or as part of a banner composition. Its also clear that many have not, and don't understand how taking another artists work and passing it off as their own (and getting credited for it, even if no money changes hands) is a clear copyright violation.

[WynnJera]

Since I personally Have had a couple concerns with it on the fourm the past few weeks... I thought I might post a few links on the subject on how it is wrong and should not be done ...

http://members.tripod.com/~gifstogo/index-3.html

http://www.phenomenalwomen.com/donteventhinkaboutit/

http://www.fatalvixxxen.com/index.webwatch.php

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/4210/bandwidth.html

[Nighthawk]

As a final post from me for a time... i am very sorry i had linked to a graphic..I did not know I had, and i really do not understand the thing at all..... I wil publicly apologize... I did fix the one in question..if there are further violations..I will correct them...bye

[WynnJera]

As a final post from me for a time... i am very sorry i had linked to a graphic..I did not know I had, and i really do not understand the thing at all..... I wil publicly apologize... I did fix the one in question..if there are further violations..I will correct them...bye

did you notice I said a couple .. you are not the only one linking to my graphic's and making my pay for your pretty graphic displays ... ... But please forgive me I am sick and tired of the excuse of " I DID NOT KNOW " well guess what with these links now everyone can learn .... we have 1 rule now of respect ... yet no one seems to want to respect the fact that I work hard on my graphic's and when one is hotlinked from underneath me when I can hardly pay for my site that is not fair to just claim " ooops I did not know " follow the links and learn about it ... it is wrong ... on the of site has a great example .... if your power got turned off at your house would you take a power cord and hook it up to the next house without asking them so when they got their power bill it would twice or 3 x the amount it should be ... well that is what happens in essence when people steal bandwidth .... the information is out there for you to find ... there should be no reason to claim you did not know you were doing something wrong ... with JD's health we are on a tight budget and this is something that makes me happy to have and I will not see it taken away ciz someone steals it away ....

[CzechWoods]

as i have to deal with bandwidth theft aka remote linking to my sites a lot - i also woule like to remind people NEVER to do remote linking.

its simply wrong. period

[CzechWoods]

eta:
sometimes i change image names, that have been remotedly linked to, and instead of the stolen graphic, then something like:

"I am currently trying to steal graphix from
XYZ.com" or just a stinky finger or alike

i also have put up "i am a thief" picture
so everyone visitinbg the persons post knew about their motivations

but its still a pain in the *insert region where no sunshine is*

[Mindflayer]

I remote link my avatar and images from my own server all the time, I've never noticed any huge bandwidth consumption from it.

I agree that you shouldn't do it without permission, but at the same time, I can't quite figure out why, unless you have some huge 30meg image file or something...

[SSanf]

I want to mention that some of the banners I have created for myself have images NOT in the public domain. But, they are composed of merchant provided images that are given to us for use to sell their products. I am certain they want them used so long as it helps them make money. I guess, that is permission for use and so should be OK.

I do hot link to images. But, hey, the images are served from my own sites and I am not complaining.

And, I want to add that if someone wants to link to an image from one of my sites, I actually NEED all the incoming links I can get. A link to an image is still a link to the search engines! A link to an image, of course can't be spidered but it is still an incoming link and can help raise your page rank value which is very, very well worth the tiny cost of hosting the image. So, just contact me about it first in case it is a merchant image and not one of my own.

In fact, here is a whole page of graphics that I made myself. Link away at will!

http://www.sanfords.net/Spots_free_graphics/Pagan_Banners_1.html (http://www.sanfords.net/Spots_free_graphics/Pagan_Banners_1.html)

I really need to update that site. I used to think it was cute.

[CzechWoods]

I remote link my avatar and images from my own server all the time, I've never noticed any huge bandwidth consumption from it.

I agree that you shouldn't do it without permission, but at the same time, I can't quite figure out why, unless you have some huge 30meg image file or something...

thats like saying: its not shop ligting, i just took a candy bar

[Mindflayer]

thats like saying: its not shop ligting, i just took a candy bar

That doesn't make any sense to me. They aren't stealing anything by remote linking your picture, UNLESS they are using it to sell soemthing (which is illegal). Sure it's a small bandwidth hit, but unless it's a huge image, or you have an extremely small amount of bandwidth, I don't see a problem?

[SSanf]

Well, it CAN become a problem for people who have limited bandwidth usage and someone links to an image from a very high traffick site like MW where thousands and thousands of people view the image every day.

Indeed, it can certainly become a very significant problem. In a case such as that, if your hosting costs are going over $50 a month, I can hook you up with a guy who can give you a GREAT deal!

I have dozens of sites so I must know these things. Really, if you are paying more than that for all your sites, combined, I might be able to help.

[CzechWoods]

That doesn't make any sense to me. They aren't stealing anything by remote linking your picture, UNLESS they are using it to sell soemthing (which is illegal). Sure it's a small bandwidth hit, but unless it's a huge image, or you have an extremely small amount of bandwidth, I don't see a problem?

i do see a problem

it is simply wrong

it is neither their image, nor their bandwidth. it plays no role whether the one who has to pay teh bandwidth has the funds or hasnt.

that which is NOT on your server is NOT yours, and MAY NOT be used

imagine you have an apple tree on your house prperty, and every person passing by would step on your property , pick any amount of apples and leave

[Nantonos]

i do see a problem

it is simply wrong
You oversimplify. It is not wrong, necessarily, any more than following any link is wrong.


it is neither their image, nor their bandwidth. it plays no role whether the one who has to pay teh bandwidth has the funds or hasnt.
Mystic Wicks has content, including images, that you access every day. Its not your server, but you follow links to it all the time. Thats the Web architecture. Thats what servers are for.

For every person with expensive bandwidth saying "copy, don't link" there is someone else with dynamic conent saying "link, don't copy". Both are rational positions with strengths and benefits. The issue of the copyright status of the content, whether text or images , is orthogonal to that linking decision. (So a deep linking discussion should really be in another thread).


that which is NOT on your server is NOT yours, and MAY NOT be used
You don't define 'use' so its hard to discuss that statement.

Linking is the basis of how the Web works. If a server administrator wants to limit they types of linking in some way - for example, to subscribers only, or to restrict images to only be used with particular referrers, or to only serve something 50 times a day, or only at certain times, or whatever, then the server admin can do that. Access control is part of the Web architecture too, and one solution is not universally appropriate.

For a technical discussion of the issue, please see
"Deep Linking" in the World Wide Web
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/deeplinking-20030911 (http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/deeplinking-20030911)
by the technical architecture group of the W3C.

[CzechWoods]

i so do wish, that all you people who find remoted stealing of bandwidth be no problem, may be taught the lesson WHY it actually is wrong

i do not wish you harm, in general, but i do wish you the lesson indeed

[CzechWoods]

a link is a link.
a picture is NOT a link

i do not talk public domain
i do not discuss when its saying: "take away as you wish"

edited to add:
yes i simplify . because to understand right from wrong in terms of stealing needs no complications.
the term over-simplify only proves you are not agreeing with the simplification

insert a complifying text, but keep in mind, that that, which is not yours is not yours
if you want to use something ask
if the answer is no, do not take

[SSanf]

Here's the thing. It is best to just ask. There are people like me who need and want links of any kind to raise our SE positioning. There are others who are on limited budgets and who do not buy bandwidth in volumn for whom bandwidth is an important factor. So, what is so darned hard about being polite and asking, anyway?

And, I blush when I write that! I ain't no friggin' saint, myself. Especially, not in my novice years of web site construction.

P.S. I over simplify. It is not a techinical link but it gets your site URL on their page where it is read and noted by the SEs. And, that is a good thing. But, I am sure you knew what I meant.

[Mindflayer]

Well, it CAN become a problem for people who have limited bandwidth usage and someone links to an image from a very high traffick site like MW where thousands and thousands of people view the image every day.

Indeed, it can certainly become a very significant problem. In a case such as that, if your hosting costs are going over $50 a month, I can hook you up with a guy who can give you a GREAT deal!

I have dozens of sites so I must know these things. Really, if you are paying more than that for all your sites, combined, I might be able to help.


My friend and I own a website and pay for hosting, we have around 200-250 people that visit the site, surf around, and hang out there for a little bit every-day. I link to pictures off of the server ALL the time, (my avatar is remote linked I beleive), so yes 1000's of MW do see it everyday from my server, I also have multiple links on another very popular message board for a game I play... so figure that's another 100 people visiting the sit on any given day.

so 300-350 people VISITING the site, and 1000's viewing an image from the site every day.

This month, I have not used even 1GB of bandwidth... out of 150GB (yes, 150!), we pay $220 a year (about $18 a month, if you figure it out, but we pay per year).

Go ahead, remote link anything you want my server, I just don't see the problem :p

[Mindflayer]

To clarify: I do understand someone taking/linking an image from a site and using it for their own purposes (i.e. to sell soemthing) that is copyright infringement and it is wrong.

However, linking to a picture from a site, just to show the picture, I do not see as wrong. As long as they don't claim it is there, and it's not some ridiculously huge picture, or you have a ridiculously low amount of bandwidth (like a gig or two), then what's the problem?

[SSanf]

Some people DO have a rediculously amount of band width and some people use free sites, even worse!

I have two sites hosted on non-bargin basement hosts. I was pretty unhappy the first time my site went down and they demanded more money.

[Nantonos]

a link is a link.
a picture is NOT a link
Actually a picture is a link. Its a link that is activated on load rather than at user request, but its a link none the less.


edited to add:
yes i simplify . because to understand right from wrong in terms of stealing needs no complications.
the term over-simplify only proves you are not agreeing with the simplification
No, it means that I have considered and debated the issue in considerable depth, and have tried to explain it to you. You make no attempt to understand other points of view, but merely use emotional language rather than technical discussion to make your point.

Putting content on a server in a global hypermedia system means that you are making it available for linking. If you want finer grained access control to that resource, use finer grained access control (as you indicated that you already do, although apparently you serve rude images rather than using the built-in features of HTTP).

[Mindflayer]

Some people DO have a rediculously amount of band width and some people use free sites, even worse!

I have two sites hosted on non-bargin basement hosts. I was pretty unhappy the first time my site went down and they demanded more money.

You get what you pay for I guess...

[Mithrea]

Who cares how little the amount of bandwidth is stolen? It's still stolen and if enough people steal just a little, then it becomes alot. I love threads like these. They are always so telling of what kind of people some of us are. :)

[Mindflayer]

Who cares how little the amount of bandwidth is stolen? It's still stolen and if enough people steal just a little, then it becomes alot. I love threads like these. They are always so telling of what kind of people some of us are. :)

What do you mean by that?

[Nantonos]

Who cares how little the amount of bandwidth is stolen? It's still stolen and if enough people steal just a little, then it becomes alot. I love threads like these. They are always so telling of what kind of people some of us are. :)

Its the 'still stolen' part that is disputed here. Putting a resource on a server and giving it a URL is license for someone else to follow that URL. If you don't want anyone to see it, don't put it on a server. If you want some people to see it but not others, use access control.

I agree its telling, when some people give technical explanations with citations and some people just fling accusations and :aburst: :atantrum: without backing it up.

[mucgwyrt]

I want to mention that some of the banners I have created for myself have images NOT in the public domain. But, they are composed of merchant provided images that are given to us for use to sell their products. I am certain they want them used so long as it helps them make money. I guess, that is permission for use and so should be OK.

I do hot link to images. But, hey, the images are served from my own sites and I am not complaining.

And, I want to add that if someone wants to link to an image from one of my sites, I actually NEED all the incoming links I can get. A link to an image is still a link to the search engines! A link to an image, of course can't be spidered but it is still an incoming link and can help raise your page rank value which is very, very well worth the tiny cost of hosting the image. So, just contact me about it first in case it is a merchant image and not one of my own.

In fact, here is a whole page of graphics that I made myself. Link away at will!

http://www.sanfords.net/Spots_free_graphics/Pagan_Banners_1.html (http://www.sanfords.net/Spots_free_graphics/Pagan_Banners_1.html)

I really need to update that site. I used to think it was cute.
Wow, I never realised that search engines consider images to be links! Maybe I'll follow suit and ask that my banners be linked, not copied! :thumbsup:

Just to contribute to the conversation; I think that anyone with their own domain who has a problem with people linking to their images should sort out something like tripod has, whereby the images show up as "you cant see this because blah blah...", and then people will not have the incentive to "steal" your bandwidth, you know? It's fairly easy, and can be done with a .htaccess file, and I'm fairly sure you can leave one folder exempt to keep your banners and so forth in.

I also have a domain - I link several images from it to my siggie here and in several other message boards, along with all my art (i.e. large images) posts in the Arts & Crafts room and The Marketplace (and with 13.84 posts on average every day on this board alone, thats a lot of views) and as well as visitors to my site I still dont have problem with bandwidth costs. I never ever get charged extra, and thats on a budget $6 a month plan, you know?

[mucgwyrt]

did you notice I said a couple .. you are not the only one linking to my graphic's and making my pay for your pretty graphic displays ... ... But please forgive me I am sick and tired of the excuse of " I DID NOT KNOW " well guess what with these links now everyone can learn .... we have 1 rule now of respect ... yet no one seems to want to respect the fact that I work hard on my graphic's and when one is hotlinked from underneath me when I can hardly pay for my site that is not fair to just claim " ooops I did not know " follow the links and learn about it ... it is wrong ... on the of site has a great example .... if your power got turned off at your house would you take a power cord and hook it up to the next house without asking them so when they got their power bill it would twice or 3 x the amount it should be ... well that is what happens in essence when people steal bandwidth .... the information is out there for you to find ... there should be no reason to claim you did not know you were doing something wrong ... with JD's health we are on a tight budget and this is something that makes me happy to have and I will not see it taken away ciz someone steals it away ....

I think that's a little hypocritical, considering your website is full of other people's artwork, for which you give them no credit, you know? :fpipesmok

[mol]

Putting content on a server in a global hypermedia system means that you are making it available for linking. If you want finer grained access control to that resource, use finer grained access control (as you indicated that you already do, although apparently you serve rude images rather than using the built-in features of HTTP).

I had a link to an outside image once. It was for a banner exchange. Well, I had not kept up with those exchanges for awhile and someone contacted me via email about a disturbing picture on this site. I went to the banner page and saw a banner that had HARDCORE PORN on it. Penetration. With the message, stop stealing my bandwidth.

That's wrong. There are no telling how many kids saw that. The message could have been given without all of that nonsense.

Oh, and this was a Pagan site, btw. That did this. They are no longer in operation either...although I can't take credit for that.

[DragonsChest]

I save the images I use to my hard drive, and then upload the pics from there, associating the proper link to the image. I do this because I hope I avoid the issue of bandwidth theft that way. And because most folks ask me to. And I am happy to accomodate their wishes, after all, it is their image I want to use. Seems like common curtesy to me.

Now, having said that: if anyone ever finds that I have accidently linked directly to you, please don't just moan and complain about it - tell me. I'll be happy to fix my error.

:bubbles:

[Nantonos]

I had a link to an outside image once. It was for a banner exchange. Well, I had not kept up with those exchanges for awhile and someone contacted me via email about a disturbing picture on this site. I went to the banner page and saw a banner that had HARDCORE PORN on it. Penetration. With the message, stop stealing my bandwidth.

That's wrong. There are no telling how many kids saw that. The message could have been given without all of that nonsense.

Yes, I agree. Its irresponsible. Just use access control to give a 401 or 403 response code
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html (http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html)

I also get annoyed at sites that install right-click handlers, sometimes with abusive messages like Don't **** steal my *** images, ***!!!!!
. Which is irritating because I often use right-click to open a link in a new tab, for instance, and dislike being called a thief or screamed at when I try to do so.

[IamLordVoldemort]

That Mol sure is useful. Thankyou Mol.

[Alaiyo]

Thanks again.

[pentacledreamer]

Well any pictures I've used have been my own. though just last month I got into a week long debate with my webdesign teacher about anime being copy righted. she didn't understand that it is a style not a character.. and she said that my pictures looked to much like others.. well it's fricken anime of course it does.. but all the characters are my own.. like the picky under my name thats my centor Faith.. with a bird and lots of daisies becuase I like daisies and drawing wings and things.. but yeah.. anyway. So I won't have a problem with copyrights becuase I have all my pic's copyrighted already and I draw them myself....