Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
Sign in to follow this  
SBARC

Copyrights on images

Recommended Posts

Hi Everyone,

I'm glad you are making such productive use of this forum. It's looking excellent so far.

One request though....only post pics you own the copyright to or that you have copyright permission to use. Posting photos here is the same as publishing photos in a book....so you must respect the copyrighted owners of the photos.

Thanks!!! And keep up the good work.....I'm really enjoying this new forum.

Steve B

ARC Owner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Everyone,

I'm glad you are making such productive use of this forum. It's looking excellent so far.

One request though....only post pics you own the copyright to or that you have copyright permission to use. Posting photos here is the same as publishing photos in a book....so you must respect the copyrighted owners of the photos.

Thanks!!! And keep up the good work.....I'm really enjoying this new forum.

Steve B

ARC Owner

Steve,

With that being said; if the image was extracted for a source that is publically available, meaning free of cost can it be used?

Curious,

JC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious as well about that, back in the day you could put a link to Airliners.net pics, but not post the pics themselves due to the copyright issue. Has that changed or is it business as usual?

Ves :banana:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if the image was extracted for a source that is publically available, meaning free of cost can it be used?

No. The only exception is if the photo was taken by the Government, ie. official USAF, USN, etc, or by a military member while on duty, etc. Public Domain photos are copyright-exempt, and can be used freely. If a photo is copyrighted, which includes, of course, Airliners.net, it is technically a copyright violation to re-post the images anywhere, or reproduce them in any manner.

Jake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm curious as well about that, back in the day you could put a link to Airliners.net pics, but not post the pics themselves due to the copyright issue. Has that changed or is it business as usual?

Ves :blink:

I believe the critical issue with airliners.net is that any link to their site must load a webpage with the advertising. The advertising is how they pay for their costs. If you link directly to their images then you bypass the advertising and they get no revenue to cover their costs. I believe text links to their webpage containing the pic you link is very much ok by them.

If anyone knows differently please correct me.

To bypass the advertising is basically using a website and not helping to pay for the website costs. Advertising income is critical to website's survival.

Steve B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a photo is copyrighted, which includes, of course, Airliners.net, it is technically a copyright violation to re-post the images anywhere, or reproduce them in any manner.

That also includes any images from stock photo houses such as Corbis, Getty, Veer, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about some pages from a T.O., Specifically a flight manual, either a purchased copy of a manual, copies of T.O. pages (unclassified of course), or a issued military original?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WE seem to be having more trouble with this. I called a guy on it and he still hasn't taken action, where are the moderators?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe the critical issue with airliners.net is that any link to their site must load a webpage with the advertising. The advertising is how they pay for their costs. If you link directly to their images then you bypass the advertising and they get no revenue to cover their costs. I believe text links to their webpage containing the pic you link is very much ok by them.

If anyone knows differently please correct me.

To bypass the advertising is basically using a website and not helping to pay for the website costs. Advertising income is critical to website's survival.

Steve B

Since this came up in a different thread, I'd like to add something to this. A court case that was decided in 2007 clarifies the copyright rules on direct linking to images on other sites:

"Moreover, in Perfect 10, the court laid down a far-reaching precedent in favor of linking and framing, which the court gave a complete pass under copyright. It concluded that "in-line linking and framing may cause some computer users to believe they are viewing a single Google webpage, [but] the Copyright Act" simply does not prohibit such conduct."

(From Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing)

Of course, the law may be very different in other countries. But for US companies (such as Demand Media, the owner of airliners.net) this result very clearly allows direct linking to images. I don't know where ARC is based legally - if it's in Canada the Canadian law may be different.

You could argue that airliners.net is missing out on advertising revenue by direct linking. But I suspect the footer on the images gives them enough free advertising to drive additional traffic to their site. This additional traffic makes up for the advertising loss for that particular image. In addition, if a site really doesn't want you to direct link to images, it's a very simple coding fix to check the referrer header and not serve up the image if the link to the image is from outside the site.

Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since this came up in a different thread, I'd like to add something to this. A court case that was decided in 2007 clarifies the copyright rules on direct linking to images on other sites:

"Moreover, in Perfect 10, the court laid down a far-reaching precedent in favor of linking and framing, which the court gave a complete pass under copyright. It concluded that "in-line linking and framing may cause some computer users to believe they are viewing a single Google webpage, [but] the Copyright Act" simply does not prohibit such conduct."

(From Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing)

Of course, the law may be very different in other countries. But for US companies (such as Demand Media, the owner of airliners.net) this result very clearly allows direct linking to images. I don't know where ARC is based legally - if it's in Canada the Canadian law may be different.

You could argue that airliners.net is missing out on advertising revenue by direct linking. But I suspect the footer on the images gives them enough free advertising to drive additional traffic to their site. This additional traffic makes up for the advertising loss for that particular image. In addition, if a site really doesn't want you to direct link to images, it's a very simple coding fix to check the referrer header and not serve up the image if the link to the image is from outside the site.

Bruce

this is from the link you supplied

Because the copyright-protected content is stored on a server other than that of the linking or framing person (it is stored on the plaintiff's server), there is typically no infringing "copy" made by the defendant linking or framing person (as may be essential), on which to base liability

but what about taking an airliners.net pic (or anyones for that matter) and putting in your photobucket account, and then reposting. A copy has been made.

Or even worse, altering the image and reposting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, a question to the Pros, say you've posted a photo and someone much later on asks to see that subject, do you mind if I was to repost that image using your url just for convenience sake to the new questioner ? Or would you rather me direct them to the original post ? I'm meaning that everything is contained on ARC to begin with also ... No disrespect is intended either ...

IE: "Here's a photo that Ken Middleton posted of that last year ..."

Gregg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya!

This might help form my time working in the NZ patent office:

In the US there is fair use, UK and other countries its known as fair dealing and allows for replication and "limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship."

As such, if i am conducting a class on on the topic of iconography; i can use parts of a Simpson's episode from TV in my presentation for analysis & criticism without requiring any permissions ( you see see this a lot in documentaries that use TV clips)

however i cant screen entire Simpson's episodes in front of a class

the second part involves the World Intellectual Property Organization

under the WIPO architecture- of which most of the world are signatories; when you publish an item to a public domain (of which a forum is the most purest form) you are surrendering your rights to that domain and others in its sphere (in this case the internet)

hence why if George Lucas uploads star wars to a forum, it is free for non commercial use under fair use/balance - as he put it up for free access.

However if he puts it on a website to be downloaded for a fee, and someone re-hosts it for free - that is breaking the 'law' - even if you are using for commentary, criticism etc

what about the Simpson's example then? - that would be different as the TV station has purchased and broadcast the clip freely across the airwaves - uploading it into a public domain without limits for access.

so how would this relate to a site like airliners.net?

as the photos are free access within a public domain, u can save, copy, re host, edit - as long as its being used for non commercial purposes, almost anything without any real legal ramification (whether its good internet etiquette is another matter!)

the main gripe for a site like airliners is more concerning direct linking to the image rather than copyrights on the image: your using their page bandwidth without actually going to their page, seeing ads etc - so they loose on both fronts.

re hosting an image in a place like ARC is fine - the image still states its origins, but isn't taking bandwidth away from airliners. best course of action is a web link to the original.

though due to websites dying I like to post a re hosted image and the web link for those interested, as nothing sucks than a cool page full of red X's :rofl:

hope this helps

Regards

Raymond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hiya!

This might help form my time working in the NZ patent office:

In the US there is fair use, UK and other countries its known as fair dealing and allows for replication and "limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship."

As such, if i am conducting a class on on the topic of iconography; i can use parts of a Simpson's episode from TV in my presentation for analysis & criticism without requiring any permissions ( you see see this a lot in documentaries that use TV clips)

however i cant screen entire Simpson's episodes in front of a class

the second part involves the World Intellectual Property Organization

under the WIPO architecture- of which most of the world are signatories; when you publish an item to a public domain (of which a forum is the most purest form) you are surrendering your rights to that domain and others in its sphere (in this case the internet)

hence why if George Lucas uploads star wars to a forum, it is free for non commercial use under fair use/balance - as he put it up for free access.

However if he puts it on a website to be downloaded for a fee, and someone re-hosts it for free - that is breaking the 'law' - even if you are using for commentary, criticism etc

what about the Simpson's example then? - that would be different as the TV station has purchased and broadcast the clip freely across the airwaves - uploading it into a public domain without limits for access.

so how would this relate to a site like airliners.net?

as the photos are free access within a public domain, u can save, copy, re host, edit - as long as its being used for non commercial purposes, almost anything without any real legal ramification (whether its good internet etiquette is another matter!)

the main gripe for a site like airliners is more concerning direct linking to the image rather than copyrights on the image: your using their page bandwidth without actually going to their page, seeing ads etc - so they loose on both fronts.

re hosting an image in a place like ARC is fine - the image still states its origins, but isn't taking bandwidth away from airliners. best course of action is a web link to the original.

though due to websites dying I like to post a re hosted image and the web link for those interested, as nothing sucks than a cool page full of red X's :thumbsup:

hope this helps

Regards

Raymond

Raymond

Thanks for explaining the above.

Q#1 - what happens with slides that have been sold and traded numerous times ? I have seen people sell them to publishers and pocket a feee.

Q#2 - Many years ago we paid for all the TO Dash 1 Manuals to be converted to PDF files. These got sold to help pay our overheads with the website. A few years went by and we had no problems. Now days a number of people are selling what we paid to get put together !! ??

The USAF Manuals are free of copyright but surely the time and effort we put into coverting into a PDF gives us some rights.

Your views would be greattly appreciated

Cheers

byt290

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the United States the reproduction via hyperlinking and framing is pretty clearly covered under fair use for "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research." I believe this is the intention of most people linking images.

That the ARC forums run no ads I can clearly see mean the case for fair use in this case is even easier to make. If there was a commercial benefit to reposting the pictures here then it would problematic (and of course as someone said, copyrighted images taken and placed in a third party photobucket account or the like without permission is clearly in violation). Generally, reproduction of a piece of intellectual property under 300 kb or under 300 words (whichever is smaller) is also allowed in the US under fair use. Whenever I reproduce images in order to upload them to my photobucket account and the copyright is unclear, I specifically reduce the file size to comply with this. The word count is also important, because otherwise every time someone quoted someone else in a book or a news article they would have to ask for permission.

Edited by thatguy96

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a legal matter, this is, therefore, complicated. :P

There is two ways around a lot of this.

1) Get the image owner's permission.

2) When an image is used for education (and that term has many interpretations), it is fair use, supported by many legal precedents in case law in the USA.

We face this issue all the time in schools. I'm a school librarian. Historically, courts make every effort to rule in favor of the user if it can be reasonably shown to be an educational use, even when out of a traditional school setting. It is the owner of the image that has to prove damages.

Much of the material we use as modelers is for education. As in, "How did you build that awesome model?"

Where we get into problems is if the image is shown at a gathering open to the general public or where admission or membership is charged. This could also include a commercial magazine that charges for subscriptions and/or accepts advertising. In actual cases, courts have drawn the line at the point where someone else's image is used for financial gain by another user. That financial gain can include showing someone else's images without their permission at, say, an IPMS meeting, where the images might motivate someone to join by paying dues.

My guideline, and what I teach my students, is to be thoughtful and courteous. Many photographers are quite willing to help, if their images might help someone learn.

Please don't start a flame war about all this. There are, of course, many gray areas, and bazillions of "what ifs."

Rick in Maine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question about this. I bought a decal sheet that came with a walkaround CD. Can I use those pics here since I bought the CD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a question about this. I bought a decal sheet that came with a walkaround CD. Can I use those pics here since I bought the CD?

You may have bought the CD, but you didn't buy the rights to the pictures if someone else took them. No different than buying a book with pictures in it, or a music CD from a store.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may have bought the CD, but you didn't buy the rights to the pictures if someone else took them. No different than buying a book with pictures in it, or a music CD from a store.

Hey Dave,

I think the arguments are more nuanced than that, especially with the commentary of "fair-use" and that it's not being sold for profit. I would contend that sharing low-resolution versions of the images, for the purpose of research (the reason for this forum) would constitute fair-use, and as others have mentioned, ARC does not have active advertising on the forums which help reinforce this fact.

Ultimately it's the motivations behind why the photos would be posted that determine the infringement - I'm sure that Steve is just trying to cover all the bases by making sure that this topic it top of mind when we're posting images.

It's like the old days when people made mix tapes / copies and passed them around to friends and said, "Hey listen to this awesome band I found!" or brought it into music class so the other students could hear what an great guitar riff sounded like. While some lawyers would jump on this and scream and yell COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, fact is that if the friends like what they heard, they'd by the album themselves to listen to or learn from. The person making the tape isn't profiting from the distribution, and may actually be helping the band get more sales... Now if they were duping the tapes and selling them at a profit, that'd be another story!

danse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone, I am searching for a photo or drawing of "Sioux City Sue", supposedly nose art for a B29 bomber of the 20th Air Force, 509th Wing. Anyone have or know where I can find a copy? Thanks! Debra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone, I am searching for a photo or drawing of "Sioux City Sue", supposedly nose art for a B29 bomber of the 20th Air Force, 509th Wing. Anyone have or know where I can find a copy? Thanks! Debra

:D g'day Debra,

this thread is actually for the discussion of copyright issues and the like. I'm not nitpicking but your querie would probably be better positioned in the General Discussion or Props Forums where it'll get more attention than here. It's an easy enough mistake for a newbie to make. There are now a lot of forums on this site and it would be easy for a newbie to be confused by all the different subjects covered. If you were to post in either General Discussion or the Props Forum you'd probably get a better response.

:cheers:,

Ross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D, Actually Debra,

It would probably be better to start a new thread here in Research Corner than to piggy back off a totally unrelated thread here. You could also make your requests in the General Discussion and Props Forums as well.

:cheers:,

Ross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I deal with copyright issues on a regular basis as a library staffer. The points made in this thread by Raymond, Rick in Maine, and danse are all cogent. I suspect that posting of most pix found in a Google search here on this board are going to fit very comfortably under the Fair Use provisions of the US copyright laws. Posting of those pix would not be to generate income for the poster, but to share information. The same goes for a single pix from a DVD that a user purchased. We go by the 10% rule of not reproducing more that 10% of any copyrighted book/film/DVD/pamphlet/work, which is a rough guideline; a single picture falls within the Fair Use provisions. I don't see anybody buying and selling pix for other uses at all...if that were happening, then you might have a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea people get burned when they are straightforward and indicate to a copyrighted person that they have trouble removing pictures (honest mistake because I am usually extremely careful and respectful with this kind of stuff) but are making every possible effort to have it resolved as soon as possible and then the person just gets in a frenzy and has a permanent non-expiring ban issued.

I am thinking of just throwing all my type specific plane models in the dumpster (lots of Hasegawas with Verlinden update sets and all) including a huge 1:18 example because it left an extremely bad and negative taste in my mouth, in fact my scale model hobby went straight into the fridge and I don't know if I will ever really pick it back up again.

Edited by InjectTheVenom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...