View previous topic | View next topic

Images: Please read...

Page 3 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3

bemahan
558750.  Sat May 23, 2009 2:33 pm Reply with quote

Shame.

 
yoda6519
662622.  Wed Jan 27, 2010 11:31 am Reply with quote

what is the max size for images to be presented? (or preferred size)

cheers

yoda6519

*edited to allow reply notification*

 
barbados
662632.  Wed Jan 27, 2010 11:57 am Reply with quote

Your image should really be of a size that does not alter the layout of the page

 
yoda6519
662696.  Wed Jan 27, 2010 3:05 pm Reply with quote

cheers m8

 
bobwilson
662802.  Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:36 pm Reply with quote

More out of curiosity than anything but

Quote:
We know that many of the users of this forum are young teenagers and we have a legal responsibility to keep our site content within reasonable bounds.


What legal responsibility?

(I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment - I'm just curious about the legal requirement to keep within "reasonable bounds").

 
suze
663176.  Thu Jan 28, 2010 1:21 pm Reply with quote

The servers which host this site are located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and as such these forums "are governed by the applicable laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, USA ("Pennsylvania") and the United States of America". (That is from the terms of service published by the hosting company.)

Now, the Pennsylvania Statutes (Chapter 18, Section 5903) make it a crime to "to display, distribute, exhibit, design, photograph, print or publish obscene materials". And Pennsylvania defines "obscene" as "Any material or performance, if: (1) the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the subject matter taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest".

We have to remember that an "average person's" idea of "community standards" in the USA is perhaps more conservative than is the case in Britain. We also have to remember that we can't afford an American lawyer should there ever be a suggestion that these forums have broken the rules!

Forums which are actually based around either displaying or linking to material of an adult nature tend to seek hosting providers in northern Europe (where obscenity laws are rather more liberal) or in Russia (where law enforcement is often subject to negotiation, shall we say).

 
Jenny
663181.  Thu Jan 28, 2010 1:36 pm Reply with quote

Thank you suze - I knew there was some reason I had to do it...

 
Posital
839802.  Sun Aug 21, 2011 5:45 pm Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:
Other posters please take note - if you are not posting your own photographs, please check that you are not in breach of copyright by posting somebody else's, and give credit where it's due.
Thought I'd put this here for easy reference.

But just to clarify - Is it sufficient to give credit, or do we need to request permission for the usage on this site? And even then, would we need to submit a copy of that permission to the owner of QI.com?

It seems to me that hot-linking simply allows someone else's content to appear in a different context - but I know there's counter-arguments to this.

 
suze
839812.  Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:15 pm Reply with quote

Strictly speaking, you are supposed to obtain permission from the copyright holder before using his photograph.

Some owners of photographs object very strongly to any non-authorized use of their photos. Some others don't mind if it's on a personal hobby website but absolutely do mind - or expect payment - if it's on the website of a commercial organization. Some others really aren't bothered.

It's impossible to know which category the owner of a particular photo will fall into without asking him.

 
Posital
839815.  Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:32 pm Reply with quote

Trouble is, QI is a commercial organisation (perhaps modestly so) and uses these forums as part of their business.

But hotlinking doesn't appear to be currently illegal in the US. See: Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.. But having said that, it may be that Google is a special case as it is about information organisation and retrieval.

 
barbados
839835.  Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:09 am Reply with quote

Strictly speaking, you should also ask the people in the picture if it ok to display it on a forum, but it can get complicated.

This picture would need permission (it's ok I have it pretty much exclusively actually) because you can see the face and it is recognisable

This one however

is fine, anyone can publish without permission (except mine of course) because although it is the same person he is not recognisable.

Once again the onus is on the website to prove they have the required permissions - and a link to another web site is sufficient for that, I'm not 100% certain on the generic photo hosting companies like photobucket, but publishing photographs n the internet is a real web of legalities.

PS to site owners the usual punishment for displaying a picture without this permission is a swift "could you take it down please?"

 
Jenny
839922.  Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:59 am Reply with quote

Yes that's right - most photograph owners would like - as Mr Thomson said to us in his email - to be acknowledged as the source of the image by having their website linked in the post (yes, I know in effect the image tells us the source, but it's not clear in the post) and to have their name attached to it. If they don't want the image displayed on our site, they would like us to take it down. None of these things are problematic for us as a website.

I am not a lawyer of course, and I think it possible that a few people might object more strongly than that, but I think the law is realistic enough to realize that a policy of immediately removing any image that the owner objects to being displayed is sufficient to show that we have no nefarious intentions of exploiting it at another person's expense.

 
14-11-2014
1117844.  Wed Feb 11, 2015 5:34 am Reply with quote

post 1117827

 
ellylles
1117902.  Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:23 am Reply with quote

I have to work a lot with image copyrights and permissions (for commercial use in my job) and it can be a nightmare when the owners do not make the useage terms clear.

Most of my own images (hosted on Flickr) are set to an "attribution - noncommercial" license, so I am happy for them to be used (as several have been) for noncommercial purposes without the need to contact me but with an acknowledgement or link. Should anyone want to use one for commercial purposes, I would expect them, after seeing the 'noncommercial use' bit of the license, to contact me to ask if that clause is negotiable (because possibly for a very small fee and depending on what the enterprise is, it could well be negotiable) BEFORE going ahead and using it - which is what I do when faced with the same situation.

Personally (obviously I can't speak for everyone) I wouldn't count a forum (even one attached to a commercial TV show!) as a commercial use, so I wouldn't be particularly bothered if a pic of mine was 'borrowed' on a forum as long as I got an acknowledgement or link.

However, I would of course count the use of the image in the actual TV show as a commercial use - but again, if the QI Elves Images Dept. ever wanted to use any of my images in a show I would be over the moon and am sure we could sort out an amicable arrangement! ;-)

 

Page 3 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group