Are there some general guidelines we can follow in posting photographs/images on this forum in compliance with copyright regulations, particularly when they're obtained from internet sites, or possibly scanned from books or other copyrighted material? If they're not photos/images we've taken or created ourselves, can we legally post them as long as we give credit as to their source?

Dick

You need to have permission from the copyright owner to re-use any illustrations (drawings, photos, etc.) for other than strictly personal use. Sometimes, if the copyright owner is a publishing company, you may also need to secure permission from the photographer/artist who created the photo/illustration. The copyright owner will advise you if this is necessary.

All well and good, but somehow I get the feeling that my posting the image of ITC 277 in the I.T.S. thread prompted this question.

It is my understanding that the way this bulletin board software works (and if I'm wrong, please correct me) the image that displays on your page isn't actually here; it's still on the copyright holder's web server. The only difference between this:

http://www.irm.org/cgi-bin/image.pl?conf=img800&img=/gallery/albums/IT234/aae.sized.jpg

And this:



Is the first yields a hyperlink, while the second also automatically executes it as the page is loaded. At no time has the image itself actually been copied; the copyright holder retains full control, and can remove the image or block access at any time. In which case the RyPM page will just show the broken link icon.

Indeed, I don't believe there is any way that the RyPN site can host an image, other than those the site administrators have used to construct the pages. If I want to post an image I own, or one I scanned from a book, in violation of the copyright (not that I would do such a thing) I still have to find a place to store it on the web, either on my own website, or on the site of a third party hosting service, such as Flickr.

The end result, is that most the images being displayed here are perfectly legitimate, and are simply giving wider exposure to images that the copyright holder intended the public to have access to.

... is that the second one violates copyright law if you don't have the website's permission to hotlink to the image.

Here's why:

In the second example, where the photo appears here, the site that it's hosted on is "serving" the image. Every time somebody views that image, you use that computer's resources, most importantly their bandwidth, which for those of you unfamiliar with the term is measurement of data transferred from that site.

Using an image like that is called "hotlinking", and while some photo sites allow or even encourage it, others strictly prohibit it. It is important to check the rules on that site.

Site owners pay for bandwidth as part of their hosting fees, just like you pay for minutes and data plans on your cell phone. Imagine having to pay for minutes on your phone that somebody else is using, without your permission, and you'll understand the problem.

If you post a link to the image on the hosting site, and folks visit the site, then the site owner gets some benefit from that. It directs traffic to their site. The page the image is on may have ads on it, which help to pay for the hosting costs. (A quick visit to Railpictures.net, with all of it's pop-up and pop-under ads will serve as a great, if over-done, example of that...) They also control the overall presentation of the image, and the accompanying text etc.

Because the site owner is paying to host that image, even if the image itself is in the public domain, you can still be in violation if you hotlink, since you're essentially stealing bandwidth from the hosting site.

Check the hosting site's policies, and check the copyright on the image as well. If in doubt, post a link, it's the safe and respectful way to do it.

"All well and good, but somehow I get the feeling that my posting the image of ITC 277 in the I.T.S. thread prompted this question."

Dennis, I hasten to let you know that your posting of an image had nothing at all to do with my question. It arose purely from another thread in which I was involved, where I wanted to post a snapshot taken from a web site image. I do thank you for your additional comments, though, and I also thank others who are offering information on this question.

Dick

Let's look at one other thing:

What is the original objective of the photograph in question?

In the case of the IRM photo linked, is the objective to make money selling the image? Is the objective to market the property to caterers, wedding planners, and Hollywood location scouts? Is it to honor the people who restored the car to such beauty? Is it to attract paying visitors/riders to the property? Is it to lobby for or against painting railroad cars yellow, or for more ballast for the IRM?

For every photo posted here where there might be a legitimate issue such as raised by Brother Harbison (who does have an axe to grind with this topic), there is another where the issue is unimportant, where we're linking to a museum-generated photo or a photo by someone more eager to share what they saw/shot than to make something from it.

This discussion is far bigger than RyPN. It covers the whole internet and the entire future of digital rights, photography, and information sharing.

In Dallas in November 1963 we had one old guy running an 8mm camera. If a president were assassinated in a similar setting in 2011, we'd have 372 cell phone videos, 138 flip-camera videos, 47 HD DV videos, 27 television news camera angles, and one old guy still shooting Beta. 38 of those videos would be on YouTube and Facebook within an hour, and 197 within twelve hours. And only five of those videos would be good enough to be of use to investigators........... one of them the Beta guy's angle. :-)

That's actually a really good reason for providing a link to their website, rather than hotlinking. It present the image in context, which may include that information, the name of the photographer, details about the operation and car in question etc. That link will also increase the site's Google rating, which is helpful to the orgnization.




I don't so much have an axe to grind as I have experience in the topic. Since I run numerous websites, all of which allow images to be posted, this stuff is something I had to learn about years ago, and something I monitor from both sides, both in image theft from my sites as well as images posted on my site without proper permission.
As for the "axe to grind part"? Watch what happens, automatically, when you try to hotlink to one of my images:



It's not too difficult to put protection in on the server side that blocks hotlinking. I've done so on the sites where it's an issue.



In that case, it's simple. You ask the website and/or photographer for permission to use the image. They say yes, and you're good to go. I've done that before, and in the vast majority of cases the answer has been "yes". I've also had folks ask to use my images, and I almost always grant permission. By getting permission, and posting it on the site directly, you don't use their resources.



Yes, it does. It has been a big issue for some time, and it will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

Okay, if we're going to go that far, I shamelessly "borrowed" the story about filming an assassination from Penn & Teller's "How To Play With Your Food." And updated it for the digital video age.

You happy now?

Suggesting you either ask for permission before reposting somebody else's work or post a link to it in the orginal context is "going that far"? Seems like a rather reasonable courtesy to me...

Whether or not it's legal or for profit shouldn't really matter. The author and/or photographer put time and effort into creating the work. You know that quite well, you've been there and done that quite a lot. Showing some respect by asking for their permission isn't asking a lot. It's also a nice compliment for the creator, it shows them somebody like what they've created.

Friends,

Hotlinking is not clearly illegal, but it can be a big issue for sites with limited bandwidth resources.

Much of the social media world relies on hotlinking and it's cousin, embedding.

Making your own thumbnail of an image and using that to link to the original has been held up as legal, too.

As digital copyright laws evolve, this may change.

If you don't want your images on your own site hotlinked, there are ways to code your page to prevent it, though those will likely also hurt your search optimization.

The best way to keep the spirit of the Internet intact is to play nice.

Rob

Rob

OK, my degree is in Civil Engineering, not Law... However, I deal with this often.

Here's what most people just don't understand. Unless it specifically states otherwise material on the internet is copyrighted, at least here in the U.S. If you use that copyrighted material without permission, you are violating copyright law. There have been cases where people have been sued for this type of thing, and more than one site has been removed under the provisions of the DMCA for violating copyrights. It's more common for music, but it also affects photography.

Hotlinking uses that material, linking does not. It's like the difference between photocopying a magazine article and saying "I saw that in Jan 2010 Trains, page 39."

Sites that wish to do so can grant you permission to use images in verious manners. The best method for that in my opinion is the "Creative Commons" licensing, which allows you to specify how the image can be used. (With attribution, non commercial use only, etc etc.)

Here's some helpful info:
Copyright myths: http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/copy_myths.html

Creative commons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_licenses



Many sites permit hotlinking. Flickr is the best known example. In that case, it's perfectly fine.



That is correct, since you link to the source.

Exactly! Ask permission, respect copyrights, treat other people's work the way you'd like to have your work treated.

Very true, and like so many things, case law has left a confusing landscape which is why I said it is not "clearly" illegal as cases tend to also look at the purpose of the linking site - this is outside of the bandwidth theft side of the coin.

I agree with your advice, which is to treat it as a black and white situation, even if the law has many shades of gray depending upon variables.

Rob

You're right, case law can be confusing. However, if you simply approach it from a "What's the right thing to do?" the answer gets much easier. Obeying copyrights and getting permission are the right approach. If getting permission is difficult or too time consuming, you can still provide the info by posting a link.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/01/06/las-vegass-copyright-crapshoot-could-maim-social-media/


This is an interesting read on how the DMCA is being used by get-rich quick attorneys abusing the intent of the DMCA. Newspaper sells rights to content to lawyers, lawyers sue every blogger, poster etc... who quotes article. Choice is 1) pay fine or 2) pay to defend "fair use"

It is not the first time in human history someone has used regulations to stop progress, and make a buck along the way.

It is a fine example of how regulation and murky copyright laws threaten the intrinsic value of the Internet to be anything more than another way to watch TV and buy stuff.


Rob