# Copyright and avatars?



## YCantAngieRead

Where are we going to draw the line with photos and posting? And what about those with copyrighted material in their avatars?

Is it a matter of what photos are overtly copyrighted by news sources?


----------



## justapixel

YCantAngieRead said:


> Where are we going to draw the line with photos and posting? And what about those with copyrighted material in their avatars?
> 
> Is it a matter of what photos are overtly copyrighted by news sources?


David's post says:



> we will not allow any copyrighted or potentially copyrighted *material* to be posted on this site in full.


If you are referring to the particular post of yours I removed: You posted a screen shot of a news article, with a wire photo in the front of the written piece, partially obscuring the article. The photo and article was not owned by you - even though it was a screen shot from your computer - and so I removed it.

My understanding is David will not allow news stories or photos taken from other publications to be republished here. Yes, we let it slide for the past seven years, but due to the wishes of the current users, it's time to crack down.

There are many avatars that are of cartoons that people probably don't have the right to repost. My recommendation is to remove the ability to post avatars entirely. There is, unfortunately, no way we mods can possibly police the avatars, and we have no way of knowing who owns what photo, who created what, etc. The only solution will be not to allow them at all.

Edit: I have no idea how copyright law applies to avatars though. Guess I'll have to google.


----------



## justapixel

http://www.3m.com/meetingnetwork/presentations/pmag_copyright_criminal.html

In that article, it says that original works cited in copyright statutes are pictures, graphics, audiovisual and sound, which includes GIF, JPG and WAV.

Based on that, it would seem that avatars do fall under copyright law. I guess if you made your own cartoon, or are using your own photo, you are fine. But, you can't take anybody else's photo or picture and use it as your own.

Now, as a moderator, I have no idea who has made their own avatar and who hasn't, or who took their own photo and who hasn't. I don't even recognize what many of them are supposed to be. That's a can of worms that probably shouldn't have been opened, but now that it has, I guess David needs to decide what to do about it.

So, I'll wait for his comments.


----------



## YCantAngieRead

It does differ from copying a whole article, though. Which is why I'm curious about it. I doubt there's any danger in using something as an avatar, but it does bring up the question about where the line'll be drawn for photos.

Which I'm still curious about (completely separate from the issue yesterday, but for future reference.) I suppose the logical move would be to exclude photos that are clearly marked as copywritten.


----------



## YCantAngieRead

If it would be helpful, I did some poking around and found the rules that other forums use regarding avatars and copyright. I'd be happy to put those together and PM them to you.


----------



## justapixel

YCantAngieRead said:


> I doubt there's any danger in using something as an avatar, but it does bring up the question about where the line'll be drawn for photos.


The danger lies in how the users react. It is apparently illegal to use an avatar that you haven't created yourself.

If somebody has a Dilbert cartoon avatar, and that is reported to the copyright owner, then a lawsuit can happen.

It won't likely come to a suit as David will just remove the avatar - but now that we are aware of how far people will take things they disagree with, we can't say it's not a danger.



> Which I'm still curious about (completely separate from the issue yesterday, but for future reference.) I suppose the logical move would be to exclude photos that are clearly marked as copywritten.


Read this article: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

It clearly states that one of the myths of copyright law is that a photo, image or article has to be marked as having a copyright. The fact is, they don't. Anybody who takes the photo owns the copyright. Anybody who creates a picture owns the copyright. Anybody who writes anything owns the copyright.

You can see how that can be a problem for enforcement on a message board. 

I would like to see how other owners handle it, but then again, they don't have the same users we do. Rules on message boards evolve when owners become aware of laws, or realize a problem is occuring .... this new copyright rule is a perfect example of that. So, I'm not sure how relevant it'll be for us, although I would like to see it.

And, of course, it's all up to David, he's just not around right now. I don't speak for him.


----------



## YCantAngieRead

From what I've seen on other boards, it's all a matter of "if we have doubt, it'll be removed." For photos, that's easy enough-if you use something in your avatar, and can show that you either own the property or someone else does who doesn't mind you using it, it could stay. (Or cartoon. Whichever.)

And I mentioned "marked" photos because most persons or organizations that would be bothered by copying do mark their photos in some way or another. Like you said, otherwise you can't tell whose property is whose without a complaint.

It was just a thought. I don't think getting rid of avatars is the answer. Avatars are one of the things that make this board special.


----------



## Ereth

If I may make an observation without it seeming like a personal attack (because it's not), McDonalds is one of the most aggressive defenders of Copyright of which I am aware. It is ironic, at best, for a moderator using a McDonalds logo for an avatar to be discussing the copyright issues with avatars, and the possibility of removing all avatars due to them.

I see it was made by Kid 2, and it's rather cute, but if you are serious about copyright in Avatars, you shouldn't be using that one. I would think that you could probably make a case for "Fair Use", in that it's modified, and cleverly so, but given McDonalds litigious history on that front, I doubt you'd want to try to fight the issue.

I say this not to stir the pot, or to cause grief, or even to chastise you, Ann, but because I care about this place and don't want to see something bad happen to it. Please accept it in the spirit of friendliness and and concern in which it is offered.


----------



## justapixel

YCantAngieRead said:


> From what I've seen on other boards, it's all a matter of "if we have doubt, it'll be removed."


You know, that doesn't seem to go over very well here.

Oddly enough.



> For photos, that's easy enough-if you use something in your avatar, and can show that you either own the property or someone else does who doesn't mind you using it, it could stay. (Or cartoon. Whichever.)


It's NOT easy for a moderator.  That means we have to look at all the avatars. And, then we have to find out if each individual own the avatar or not? Or, if they have asked permission to use it?

100 people register a *day.* None of us has time for that. It has to be a rule for all, or a rule for none.



> It was just a thought. I don't think getting rid of avatars is the answer. Avatars are one of the things that make this board special.


Well, maybe you shouldn't have brought it up then.  Because, you are right. It's an issue. If certain people put up, say, a McDonald's avatar, I think that could be a BIG problem on this forum.

Fortunately, nobody would ever do that.


----------



## Ereth

If I may suggest.. it would be difficult for someone to not have copyright over photos of themselves (yes, it is true for celebrities, but few enough of those post here). Perhaps moving the avatar rule back to where it had to be of you, but relaxed enough to include pets, friends, etc, would suffice?

I'll grant that it still means that the mods would have to actually look at avatars, and so may not be a perfect solution, but it certainly avoids the "Matt Groenig sued us because someone used a Simpsons avatar".

And, though I am not a lawyer, it is my understanding that any copyright holder would have to first make the site aware of the copyright infringement, and request that it be removed, and the site would have to fail to do so before any legal action could take place. So even if someone DID have a copyright violation avatar, the copyright holder would have to notify the site owner, who would undoubtedly remove it immediately.

Unless we got armies of people posting copyrighted images simply to create un-necessary work for the mods, I would think that the frequency of incidents would be rather low, though I admit that's simply a guess.


----------



## YCantAngieRead

justapixel said:


> Well, maybe you shouldn't have brought it up then.


Obviously, that's the case here. But the fact is I *did* have a question, specifically regarding photos apart from avatars because the next time I link to something that's not my right to post, it'd be seen as poking when in fact I'm just THAT forgetful.


----------



## YCantAngieRead

Ereth said:


> If I may suggest.. it would be difficult for someone to not have copyright over photos of themselves (yes, it is true for celebrities, but few enough of those post here). Perhaps moving the avatar rule back to where it had to be of you, but relaxed enough to include pets, friends, etc, would suffice?


Back to avatars, though, I think this is probably a very good compromise. Plus, even when you DO get copywritten photos taken of yourself, it's pretty obvious, and doesn't happen very often. In fact, I can't think of anyone who's done it other than those who've had photos professionally done by Toine, and he certainly doesn't seem to mind.


----------



## justapixel

YCantAngieRead said:


> Back to avatars, though, I think this is probably a very good compromise. .


What's a good compromise? 

The question now for avatars is: who owns the photos/pictures being used? Who owns the cartoons being used?

How do we tell what is a violation and what isn't?

There is no compromise here, because we moderators can't tell who owns the photos/cartoons/pictures.

You have to remember, that there are thousands of people on this forum involved, not just a few from the Happy Hour.

You know, it was made pretty clear to me, via PMs, that HH people want a strict code of enforcement for copyright violations. I don't get the impression that the regulars in the rest of the forum care, but it's the HH people who make their presence on this subject known the most.

The question for us staff members was: which kind of violations can we let slide?

The answer now is, obviously - none.

So, it's a bit of a bind we are caught in.

Just explaining from my perspective. We'll see what David has to say, hopefully in the morning.


----------



## boywaja

I believe the compromise angie refers to is what ereth said. If the policy were to revert to actual pictures of you (but not just a headshot) then the odds are much better that you own the rights to the picture. 

In regards to finding the people in violation, you just find the most obessive person who is violating copyright with their avatar and pull just their avatar. They'll go through the entire member list and send you PM with everyone else who is in violation. Your job's done.


----------



## jfelbab

So what was wrong with the old rule requiring a pic of yourself as your avatar. Problem solved. Move on to the next issue.


----------



## justapixel

boywaja said:


> In regards to finding the people in violation, you just find the most obessive person who is violating copyright with their avatar and pull just their avatar. They'll go through the entire member list and send you PM with everyone else who is in violation. Your job's done.


OMG. Been there, done that, don't want to do it again. 

Reminding me of that makes me 100% sure I'm up for no avatars at this point.


----------



## Chapper1

> Originally Posted by *YCantAngieRead*
> From what I've seen on other boards, it's all a matter of "if we have doubt, it'll be removed."





justapixel said:


> You know, that doesn't seem to go over very well here.
> 
> Oddly enough.


JAP, this is stated with all due respect that is intended. I do not claim to speak for Angie or anyone else that has weighed in on this issue thus far. But I got the impression that all Angie was looking for was an explanation as to why a post she had made had violated the rules, simply for clarification for the future. She had a post vanish and had really no idea as to why. I honestly think she was just looking for an answer and not to have this spiral into the divebomb it appears to be headed for.

My personal take on this issue is that if there is something that a mod finds in violation of the new policy (or any policy for that matter), maybe that mod could take a few seconds to PM the offending party and explain why a post or a link or a picture was altered or deleted. It would help those who violate the rules know what they had done so they would not repeat the violation in the future. Maybe this policy is in place and I just wasn't aware of it.

I know that you and the other mods have other things to do and sometimes this place gets a bit overwhelming. But maybe if there was a sense of everyone working together to alleviate problems, we could avoid many of these incidents.


----------



## Gunnyman

jfelbab said:


> So what was wrong with the old rule requiring a pic of yourself as your avatar. Problem solved. Move on to the next issue.


GENIUS I tell you. :up: :up:


----------



## YCantAngieRead

justapixel said:


> What's a good compromise?


I'm speaking of the one Ereth mentioned. Photos of the poster, family, friends, pets, whatever, but cartoons and logos are too close to a violation.


----------



## YCantAngieRead

Chapper1 said:


> JAP, this is stated with all due respect that is intended. I do not claim to speak for Angie or anyone else that has weighed in on this issue thus far. But I got the impression that all Angie was looking for was an explanation as to why a post she had made had violated the rules, simply for clarification for the future. She had a post vanish and had really no idea as to why. I honestly think she was just looking for an answer and not to have this spiral into the divebomb it appears to be headed for.
> 
> My personal take on this issue is that if there is something that a mod finds in violation of the new policy (or any policy for that matter), maybe that mod could take a few seconds to PM the offending party and explain why a post or a link or a picture was altered or deleted. It would help those who violate the rules know what they had done so they would not repeat the violation in the future. Maybe this policy is in place and I just wasn't aware of it.
> 
> I know that you and the other mods have other things to do and sometimes this place gets a bit overwhelming. But maybe if there was a sense of everyone working together to alleviate problems, we could avoid many of these incidents.


This is EXACTLY what I was trying to say. It was clear I was in the wrong and I'll be the first person to admit it-to anyone. But I did want a further clarification of what was okay. That's all.


----------



## justapixel

Wow, you guys are coming out of the woodwork now, huh?



I didn't feel the need to PM a forum regular about removing a copyright violation post, one day after the new rule was posted. I am 1000% sure Angie knew of the rule. I did put in the post itself, "post removed due to copyright violation" If she needed further clarification, a fact which I cannot know as I don't read her mind, she can ask. And, she did. And, I answered. 

I didn't believe Angie is so high maintenance as to need a personal PM from me to explain what was obvious.

And, I don't intend to take my time and send personal PMs to any of the regulars who clearly know about this rule and are obviously discussing it elsewhere. If a newbie does it, then yes, I will send a PM and an explanation and a link to David's post. It's not necessary for Chapper, or Angie or many others.

The question about what to do about avatars is legitimate. And, I cannot answer it as I don't make the rules. As I said, let's see what David has to say in the morning.

Now, my kid is in bed and I'm going back to watching "Finding Neverland" which is not nearly as entertaining as thiis conversation.


----------



## YCantAngieRead

justapixel said:


> Wow, you guys are coming out of the woodwork now, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't feel the need to PM a forum regular about removing a copyright violation post, one day after the new rule was posted. I am 1000% sure Angie knew of the rule.


Yes, but...

I hadn't even thought of it being a copywritten photo. Not once. Particularly since I gave credit, and I didn't really think about the fact that we were cracking down on photos or images.

And I almost did it again about an hour ago, and I had no hidden agenda in doing so, I just forgot. New rules/rules that are newly being enforced are some times forgotten, take some getting used to or need clarification. That's all.


----------



## David Bott

The issue we had was with written text. At this time I have no issue with the avatars. Images are used all the time on sites. Again, it has not been an issue expect if a few cases when someone links to some images and we were contacted by the site ower about all this bandwidth being used. Now if we just get a flood of images to make for an issue when images where never really an issue before, then we will deal with the members themselves. 

Personally I feel the post that was removed, that then started this thread, was done so to see what someone could get away with. That is my personal thought on it really I am sorry to say. (A screen shot of a news article that was then posted as an image. ???) Even more so when I never recalled you doing that in the past.

The avatar use is like it is now because of member requests...I do not see any reason at this time to make another change to it. 

I will now close this thread. Thanks all.


----------

