Embedding photo

[wickham]

An image search at google won't find any traces of the stuff posted in this thread at lemonfool. 'Cos none of them are here. All you'll find are links to URLs.

True, I was thinking of images uploaded to the forum database.

I'm an Admin on a phpBB forum and another forum and generally speaking we can't know whether an image breaches copyright or not. We just have to let it pass and delete it if someone complains. Then we find that the forum gets in the middle of an argument and we can't please both parties. It happened when one member complained that another member had copied his design.

On the phpbBB forum someone was copying auction details, all the text and all the photos, and had given the url to the auction webpage, to build up an archive for reference after the items had been taken down from the auction site, but in that case the text and photos were not owned by the auction company as they were submitted by the seller, so we thought that copyright must have been breached and we asked him to stop.

Even if the auction site owned the copyright it would have still breached the convention that extracts are acceptable provided that a source is given.

[swill453]

Like this little winter scene (mine, for the benefit of any zealots)

With the possible downside that exploring the link discovers a web site, a real name, an email address, a date of birth and much other info.

Scott.

[mc2fool]

They are both hosted on my account so you wouldn't know if they were breaching some third parties copyright or not .

Also I could have used any photo from someone elses account on Flickr (and maybe other hosting sites) and you would not know whether I had permission to use it.

If someone uses an image search facility (like Google) he can find all uses of the image on the internet, your site and any other website, including his own, and then he can complain, even if you downloaded his image and uploaded it to your own website with a different filename.

Apropos of what?

An image search at google won't find any traces of the stuff posted in this thread at lemonfool. 'Cos none of them are here. All you'll find are links to URLs. Like this little winter scene (mine, for the benefit of any zealots): ...

Actually a google search-by-image finds quite a lot of uses (copies) of the lemons posted by redsturgeon, which isn't a huge surprise as it comes from a site called Free Images.

But I think you've missed poundcoin's and wickham's respective points. Poundcoin is saying that, yes, all that's here is a URL but even if it referenced an image hosted on an site/account he owned that still doesn't give any definite assurance that the image is his to use, as he may have copied it from someone else and you wouldn't know. But, ah, says wickham, you can get an idea by doing a google search-by-image for it to see if it crops up anywhere else.

E.g. you claim that little winter scene is yours. How can we check that? Well, we can go to Google images, click the Search by image button (the camera at the right of the search field) and stick in the URL of your winter scene and ... lo and behold, we see that that is the only copy of that image on the internet, so (unless you nicked it from a non-internet source) we can believe you

And, of course, one can also find out what pages link to a URL, and so discover its hotlinked uses....

[swill453]

E.g. you claim that little winter scene is yours. How can we check that? Well, we can go to Google images, click the Search by image button (the camera at the right of the search field) and stick in the URL of your winter scene and ... lo and behold, we see that that is the only copy of that image on the internet, so (unless you nicked it from a non-internet source) we can believe you

As long as we believe the poster owns or runs the site the URL points to, and hasn't just linked to a random (unique) image on the Internet.

Scott.

[mc2fool]

As long as we believe the poster owns or runs the site the URL points to, and hasn't just linked to a random (unique) image on the Internet.

Indeed. There are pretty simple ways of validating that but it does just add extra work onto the moderators' plate...

[PinkDalek]

As long as we believe the poster owns or runs the site the URL points to, and hasn't just linked to a random (unique) image on the Internet.

Indeed. There are pretty simple ways of validating that but it does just add extra work onto the moderators' plate...

I have no doubt it is his site as he often refers to it.

[mc2fool]

As long as we believe the poster owns or runs the site the URL points to, and hasn't just linked to a random (unique) image on the Internet.

Indeed. There are pretty simple ways of validating that but it does just add extra work onto the moderators' plate...

I have no doubt it is his site as he often refers to it.

We were talking generally and not about any specific poster. At least, I was.

[PinkDalek]

We were talking generally and not about any specific poster. At least, I was.

Fair enough but you did state "you claim that little winter scene is yours ..." earlier in the Topic and the conversation has followed on from there.

[mc2fool]

We were talking generally and not about any specific poster. At least, I was.

Fair enough but you did state "you claim that little winter scene is yours ..." earlier in the Topic and the conversation has followed on from there.

It was just an example, as signified by the "E.g." at the start, and there was a big smiley at the end, and the follow on was a generalisation rather than specific to the example, but for the avoidance of any doubt, I have not and do not express or imply any doubts about the validity of UncleEbenezer's photo and/or site whatsoever.

[PinkDalek]

No problem, my throw away comment also ended with a smiley (one which I'm unsure what it means and was probably the wrong one to have chosen).

[mc2fool]

No problem, my throw away comment also ended with a smiley (one which I'm unsure what it means and was probably the wrong one to have chosen).

Ah, that one ( ) means rolling eyes, "used to show disdain, contempt or boredom about a person or topic". http://emojipedia.org/face-with-rolling-eyes/

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way

[Gengulphus]

Something I'll point out in general, rather than in response to any particular comment above: dealing with copyright issues will cost admin/moderator time and effort, of which there is not an unlimited supply - and given that stooz & Clariman have indicated that they are (very understandably) unwilling to get involved in lawsuits, there isn't the option of not dealing with them: if the copyright owner complains, basically the only option that doesn't risk a lawsuit is to take down the material in question.

And the easiest options for dealing with copyright issues are ones we would find draconian - e.g. the copyright issues in this thread could be dealt with at minimal cost in time and effort by withdrawing the 'Img' facility. Or even more extremely, all copyright issues to do with the site could be dealt with at minimal cost in time and effort by closing the site down...

I am NOT advocating those solutions - I most definitely do not want them. But if people push the boundaries on copyright too much and thereby create too much work for admins/moderators, they're what will end up happening - especially as the weeks stretch into months and years and the moderators' job becomes more of a chore and less of a challenge... So please, everybody, for the sake of us continuing to have this site, make the moderators' job easy by steering well clear of copyright infringements!

Gengulphus