View Full Version : Question for WB admin:
Rift Zone
11-04-2007, 11:43
Who owns images posted on WhiteBlaze?
I have looked around a little for that info and haven't come up with much. I'm all for having the WhiteBlaze.net tag on the images I post.. But I refuse to surrender ownership of them. Please inform if posting images to WhiteBlaze translates into giving them up.
Who owns images posted on WhiteBlaze?
I have looked around a little for that info and haven't come up with much. I'm all for having the WhiteBlaze.net tag on the images I post.. But I refuse to surrender ownership of them. Please inform if posting images to WhiteBlaze translates into giving them up.
I wouldn't worry about it. I think that's just there so no one else steals them. They rightly can't claim ownership, when you're still in possession. If you're concerned don't post them. Anyone can lift them off the internet.
Rift Zone
11-04-2007, 12:28
They rightly can't claim ownershipOh but they can... one line in their bylaws that says: "images posted to WhiteBlaze becomes property of WhiteBlaze" is all it takes.
It does matter. Copying SOMEONE ELSE'S images is one thing. Giving MY images to WhiteBlaze is another. That WhiteBlaze tag is fine by me... I dont mind that a bit, happy to empower WhiteBlaze in that way...
But if WhiteBlaze claims ownership and I have to deal with copyright infringment on MY images if I choose to publish them at some point then ya... I will post them elsewhere.
I am willing to bet that S. Rock, AtTroll, Dixie, and FD do not have a photo section specifically for the purpose of claiming ownership of a wide variety of said photos.
This is not a website for the personal gain of the ADMINS, they have their own photos anyway,
Kirby
Rift Zone
11-04-2007, 12:39
Excellent point Kirby. I do not assume so either, but making assumptions is not good enough. I need to know! I'm in the middle of a ~10,000 mile triathlon across North America. I'm passing through some of the best scenery to be found on this continent and I really need to know if this still belongs to me:
Appalachian Tater
11-04-2007, 12:44
Posts become the copyright property of WhiteBlaze. Please don’t use them elsewhere. Please don’t post items here that are copyrighted elsewhere.
http://whiteblaze.net/index.php?page=agreement
Rift Zone
11-04-2007, 12:44
After all, some of these images might be worth a buck or two:
Rift Zone
11-04-2007, 12:48
Thx tater... that's what i needed to know
"By posting on the WhiteBlaze message boards you are agreeing to the above and relinquishing all copyright to the contents of the post(s) to WhiteBlaze."
Rift Zone
11-04-2007, 12:57
I deleted that image of the Yellowstone River sunset from my gallery... Too bad too, someone gave it a 5 star rating. Thx for that!
dixicritter
11-04-2007, 13:16
I think you're making way too big an issue out of this.
I deleted that image of the Yellowstone River sunset from my gallery... Too bad too, someone gave it a 5 star rating. Thx for that!
Just curious, how did you go about deleting your photo?
I deleted that image of the Yellowstone River sunset from my gallery... Too bad too, someone gave it a 5 star rating. Thx for that!
Yeah, not before I "stole" it off your attachement. I also gave it the 5 start rating.
Your pictures are good but there's millions of them on the internet. It's not likely someone can steal one off the 'net and do much with it. Since you have the original and it's hopeful you had your camera set to a high resolution, you may able to.
Rift Zone
11-04-2007, 13:41
I think you're making way too big an issue out of this.Perhaps, but what happens if I want to publish some of my photos? WhiteBlaze can claim copyright infringement and then what?
Just curious, how did you go about deleting your photo?Get to your gallery, click on your image, on the title bar of the image is "Image Tools"... Edit image.
Thx Sly, but ya... You have MY image. And ya, I got the hi-res one still. But if I want to publish a picture book or something down the road, you having my image means nothing. Me publishing "WB's" image is another story.
Thx Sly, but ya... You have MY image. And ya, I got the hi-res one still. But if I want to publish a picture book or something down the road, you having my image means nothing. Me publishing "WB's" image is another story.
Maybe I'll publish it! I'll just crop the whiteblaze.net. :p
Yo, Rift. If you're concerned about ownership, get your own domain and hosting service, and simply post links to your images... rather than the images themselves. There are a few of us here who take our photos somewhat seriously, but don't kid yourself about their worth.
Rift Zone
11-04-2007, 13:59
Maybe I'll publish it! I'll just crop the whiteblaze.net. :plol
I can prove origination which makes it my image and I would have the legal right to a law suit. And I would win.
If images in your gallery are copyrighted by WhiteBlaze, they could sue and win. Understand that I'm with DixiCritter and Kirby, I don't think that gallery is there to screw us. I dont think that Rock or Troll would force any such issue.... But, the possibility exists. Copyright is copyright and what happens if some corporation makes them an offer they cant refuse and wind up selling WB to the highest bidder... You can bet any corp that sees $$ would make a play for it. The point is, I will maintain copyright of my images. End of story.
I own nature-trek.net Terrapin. I will do just that. Their worth is not for you or me to decide. No kidding!
dixicritter
11-04-2007, 14:00
Perhaps, but what happens if I want to publish some of my photos? WhiteBlaze can claim copyright infringement and then what?
We have already had users here that have published their own photos for sale. You are in the clear Rift Zone, we won't come after you. Sheesh get a grip.
Yo, Rift. There are a few of us here who take our photos somewhat seriously, but don't kid yourself about their worth.
If you can't blow it up to 8 x 10 or larger and still have it look good it's basically worthless. Most of the time you're paying for matting and frame anyway. Hiking photos, especially posted to the 'net, are a dime a dozen.
I own nature-trek.net Terrapin. I will do just that. Their worth is not for you or me to decide. No kidding!
"This site under construction." Hehe.
FWIW, I've owned terrapinphoto.com for these last eight years or so. Big whoop. The grand total of photo sales from that site amounts to a big fat zero. I've sold many photos over the years, had several published. There are a few folks on WB that have seen (or own) my prints. De facto, any image posted to the web (ie., the web-based image, not the original) becomes public domain. Anyone can download it. The copyright to the original is yours by virtue of having clicked the shutter, and there are further steps you can take (eg., formal copyright registration) to enhance/enforce your legal position.
Rift Zone
11-04-2007, 14:23
We have already had users here that have published their own photos for sale. You are in the clear Rift Zone, we won't come after you. Sheesh get a grip.I hear ya, but:
Copyright is copyright and what happens if some corporation makes them an offer they cant refuse and wind up selling WB to the highest bidder... You can bet any corp that sees $$ would make a play for it.
If you can't blow it up to 8 x 10 or larger and still have it look good it's basically worthless.At 6 to 10 megapixels per... Not so worthless. And Terrapin, their value is not not really the point anyway. Copyright is. I'm just dotting my i's and crossing my t's. That's all.
Rift Zone does have a legitmate concern if he plans on publishing his photos in the future. Based upon the TOA WhiteBlaze now owns the copyright for the photos he upoaded to the White Blaze site. If he were to publish a highly profitable book and used the images that WhiteBlaze currently owns without WhiteBlaze's written permission, White Blaze could sue for a piece of the profits.
However, if Rift Zone is serious about wanting to maintain his property rights to his images he needs disclose ownership rights anytime one of his images are seen in public. It is his responsility to protect his copyright. It is generally accepted that any image posted on the internet without clearly showing copyright ownership is considered as being in the public domain. Obviously the WhiteBlaze Admins have been advised to such as they immediately mark all images as White Blaze Property.
You can't copy them off the 'net at 6-10 megapixels, therefore the images are worthless as far as lifting them and trying to sell them. Regardless, no one is going to take your right to sell the originals or ownership. Get a grip. :rolleyes:
...
I can prove origination which makes it my image and I would have the legal right to a law suit. And I would win...Yes, you can sue. Anyone can sue. But I doubt you would win. As stated in my previous post you have to not only prove ownership (origination), but you would also have to prove you actively protected your ownership. Up loading to the web without indicating copyright protection is usually considered a release to public domain, thereby allowing anyone to use the image without consent.
Rift Zone
11-04-2007, 14:42
Sly, lifting them off the net and the question of ownership are entirely distinct. I dont care who has a copy on their harddrive or otherwise. Who owns them is what I care about.
Thx for the info FatMan. Much appreciated.
Appalachian Tater
11-04-2007, 14:45
If you're really worried about your photographs, you need to watermark them with copyright information before letting them go in any form.
Rift Zone
11-04-2007, 14:49
Indeed. So I shall.
Besides watermarking, if you get your gallery up, you can take measures so they're not easily lifted. If people right click and try to save, you can put in a warning message. Also some nastier thing than that too.
Rift Zone
11-04-2007, 15:00
you can take measures so they're not easily lifted. If people right click and try to save, you can put in a warning message. Also some nastier thing than that too. I hear ya. I was raised in Silicon Valley... Knowing a bit about computers comes with the territory. What I can't handle, my friends can! But again, i'm not worried about copies laying around on other people's systems. I'm talking about ownership alone.
The day WhiteBlaze goes after someone for copyright infringment on a photo they posted on the site is the day the ATC and NPS decide to close the Appalachian Trail hiking.
Kirby
The day WhiteBlaze goes after someone for copyright infringment on a photo they posted on the site is the day the ATC and NPS decide to close the Appalachian Trail hiking.
KirbyKirby, I have little doubt that you are correct. But when it comes to money I have seen stranger things happen. The fact remains, WhiteBlaze would have the right as they currently have ownership of the uploaded photos.
Rift Zone
11-04-2007, 15:31
Kirby, I agree... i do!
but as FatMan notes, it does not remove it from the realm of possibility.
dixicritter
11-04-2007, 16:01
You really think a lot of Attroll and SGT Rock then to keep going on and on about this after being told that they wouldn't come after you for publishing your photos.
Well if WB is not going to enforce the agreement, then why is the agreement in place? :-?
You really think a lot of Attroll and SGT Rock then to keep going on and on about this after being told that they wouldn't come after you for publishing your photos.dixiecritter, I apologize if you see my posts as an attack on SGT Rock's and Attrol's integrity. I think I can speak for every member of this site when I say we hold both SGT Rock and Attrol in the highest regards. (you too.) This discussion is not about you all specifically. It is about the legal status of the uploaded images (here as well as many websites). It is incumbent upon Rift Zone to protect his images if he has future plans to publish them in pursuit of profits. The legal facts are that he has failed to do so in uploading the images to the WhiteBlaze site, unless he has entered into a separate agreement with WhiteBlaze that supercedes his prior TOS agreement. He may very well have learned some very important lessons in this thread, and WhiteBlaze may have done him a huge favor by immediately indicating the images are owned and not for use in the public domain. I am very confident that any legal issues would be quickly resolved with Rock's and Attrol's assistance. But remember, in twenty years when Rift Zone may want to publish, Rock and Attrol may no longer own this site.
Survivor Dave
11-04-2007, 16:32
You know Dix,
I have to agree with you. I don't think that Rock, Attroll, you, or anyone else would jeopardize the future of the WhiteBaze website over some photos.
Rift,
You have been a WB member for over 4 years. Why are you introducing this issue now? I don't understand. Sure everyone would like to make Bill Bryson money, but be real.
I have had my share of "issues" here and they ALL got worked out with respect, courteousy, and honesty. What more do you want?
If you are that concerned, start your own blog or whatever. Enough is enough already.
SD
You really think a lot of Attroll and SGT Rock then to keep going on and on about this after being told that they wouldn't come after you for publishing your photos.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-04-2007, 17:09
Most websites with forums have wording in the Terms of Service that states everything uploaded to the site becomes the property of the site. This is done to keep other websites from lifting whole discussions, whole photo galleries, etc. and posting them as original content on their sites without acknowledging that the info or photo came from WB -- not to take possession of people's posts or photos for personal gain.
It is my understanding that Rick (ATTroll) has the software add a watermark to the photos uploaded here to prevent them from being re-publishing without the permission of the person who uploaded them or WB. By putting the WB watermark on the photos as they are uploaded, WB is letting other sites know that permission must be obtained to use them (what FatMan said Rift Zone should do to his photos in the thread). The one time I know of another site wanting to use a photo found on WB, the other site's owner was directed to the true owner of the photo - the person who uploaded it - to decide if it could be used.
Several members here sell their photos both on line and in a more traditional setting. They have some of the photos they sell uploaded to this site in a lower-resolution format. This has never been a problem and I could not see it ever becoming a problem.
Rift Zone
11-04-2007, 17:19
Enough is enough already.My question has been answered. Now I have to answer to posting my question? Fine, here it goes:
Dave, it is an issue now because I was considering sharing (posting here) some images that might be appreciated. Now, with anything I want to retain, I will be sure to mark them and post them to my site, leaving redirects here on my posts.
Well if WB is not going to enforce the agreement, then why is the agreement in place? :-?I have no grand delusions that include making a million off my images but that doesn't mean I'm gonna give up the right to try.
Dix, with all due respect, what you said means nothing in a court of law. It is the agreement that matters. Attroll and SGT Rock could tell me the same thing and it would not take presidence over what is in the agreement. WhiteBlaze owns the content of this site. It is that simple.
I am very confident that any legal issues would be quickly resolved with Rock's and Attrol's assistance.Me too.
But remember, in twenty years when Rift Zone may want to publish, Rock and Attrol may no longer own this site.And that was my concern.
worked out with respect, courteousy, and honesty.If that is the path you wish to take then accept my apologies for irking you all. I merely posted what I thought to be a legit question over some legalities.
Cosmic Crusader
11-04-2007, 17:31
This is not a personal question and as far as general thread questions it is just out of place. If you are not an admin of this site. Should have been placed as a question to the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of the page.
Rift Zone
11-04-2007, 17:41
This is not a personal questionWhich is precicely why I posted it in a public setting.
Let me explain the image/photos that users have uploaded to WhiteBlaze. The person that posted the image is the owner of the image and we here at WhiteBlaze will never use the image for profit or gain without the written permission of the owner. We also will not grant anyone else permission to use anyone else’s image that is on WhiteBlaze without the permission of the owner. The reason for the watermark was not to have WhiteBlaze claim ownership of the image. The purpose of the watermark was to prevent others from sealing the image from WhiteBlaze and using it without the owner’s permission.
Let me explain the image/photos that users have uploaded to WhiteBlaze. The person that posted the image is the owner of the image and we here at WhiteBlaze will never use the image for profit or gain without the written permission of the owner. We also will not grant anyone else permission to use anyone else’s image that is on WhiteBlaze without the permission of the owner. The reason for the watermark was not to have WhiteBlaze claim ownership of the image. The purpose of the watermark was to prevent others from sealing the image from WhiteBlaze and using it without the owner’s permission.Attrol, your post is certainly clear. However, it is contrary to your user agreement. You might want to consider updating your user agreement to reflect your above post.
Copyright notice
All content posted on the message boards and gallery of WhiteBlaze is the exclusive intellectual property of WhiteBlaze. Copyright ownership resides in that content by WhiteBlaze and the Company is free to use any of the content as they wish. Anyone other than WhiteBlaze seeking to reprint, republish, or reproduce content posted on the WhiteBlaze message boards must receive the express written permission from the Webmaster of the WhiteBlaze forum in which the content was posted. By posting on the WhiteBlaze message boards you are agreeing to the above and relinquishing all copyright to the contents of the post(s) to WhiteBlaze.
Jack Tarlin
11-04-2007, 18:05
Troll:
Thank you for the above post in regards to ownership rights of photographs.
I assume that that the same thing applies to written submissions to the website, as well as photographs, i.e., Whiteblaze agrees that WRITTEN submissions to the website would also not be re-printed, re-published, or sold for profit without the express knowledge and permission of the original owner.
I also believe that the User Agreements of Whiteblaze should be re-written so that this is quite clear, both to present Whiteblaze members, as well as those who'll be contributing to the website in the future.
Rift Zone
11-04-2007, 18:19
Thanks for that Attroll. Frolicking Dino PM'd me earlier with a near duplicate of post #36. My response was:
No worries about the move... My apologies for not catogorizing it correctly in the first place. That is way cool... directing that organization to the originator. I have even more repect for WB knowing that.
Please understand I didn't mean to cause a big stink over this. I never doubted the integrity of WB but this is a crazy world mostly ran by lawyers and the big business they represent... I had to know what was what.
I appreciate you taking the time to inform. I want you to know that I have the utmost respect for WB and those that make it run. (even you Dix) My intent was not to challenge your integrity. I did need to know about this though, there is a possibility that I will seek publication sometime in the future and the legalities of the situation are pertinent. After all, you cant hold on to something forever and no telling if the next owners will be as cool as you. ;)
Let me explain the image/photos that users have uploaded to WhiteBlaze. The person that posted the image is the owner of the image and we here at WhiteBlaze will never use the image for profit or gain without the written permission of the owner. We also will not grant anyone else permission to use anyone else’s image that is on WhiteBlaze without the permission of the owner. The reason for the watermark was not to have WhiteBlaze claim ownership of the image. The purpose of the watermark was to prevent others from sealing the image from WhiteBlaze and using it without the owner’s permission. Umm... As FatMan and Jack Tarlin mentioned, care to put that in writing?:D
Cosmic Crusader
11-04-2007, 18:20
Should have been placed as a question to the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of the page.
yeah I guess its better for a bunch of hikers to talk this out than to just stick to what it says in the EULA. And if it was supposed to be a public question why does it have that subject heading?:-?
Bottom line is if you want to make money on something EVER dont EVER share it freely.
Troll:
Thank you for the above post in regards to ownership rights of photographs.
I assume that that the same thing applies to written submissions to the website, as well as photographs, i.e., Whiteblaze agrees that WRITTEN submissions to the website would also not be re-printed, re-published, or sold for profit without the express knowledge and permission of the original owner.
I also believe that the User Agreements of Whiteblaze should be re-written so that this is quite clear, both to present Whiteblaze members, as well as those who'll be contributing to the website in the future.
Yes the same goes for all articles that are submitted to the WhiteBlaze articles section. We would not release these articles for use by anyone else without the permission of the person that submitted the article.
I look at the forums in a different manner. The forums are not photos or published articles. They are post by other users that are trying to help out other hikers. The soul purpose of the forums is for users to share their knowledge and to help prepare other users who are going to be hiking the AT and any other trails that are discussed on this web site. I feel that any information in the forums is for sharing with others. That was the soul purpose of the forums. So I am not going to tell users to read the forum posts and not pass on the information to help others. That would defeat the purpose of the forums.
I am not going to turn this thread into a long discussion about whether WhiteBlaze owns the post that are posted in the forums on this web site. If you do not want to share your knowledge or communicated with others to help them by posting in our forums, that is your choice. No one is twisting your arm by making you post.
Rift Zone
11-04-2007, 18:35
Cosmic, I hear what you are saying, but i'm not feeling it. Perhaps someone else cares about this. It could happen!
I also believe that the User Agreements of Whiteblaze should be re-written so that this is quite clear, both to present Whiteblaze members, as well as those who'll be contributing to the website in the future.
And Attroll, my take on your latest post is this:
Images=originator
Articles=originator
Posts in Forums=WhiteBlaze
I'm cool with that!
Jack Tarlin
11-04-2007, 18:36
Rick:
There is a very significant difference, as you well know, between passing information along and sharing it with others, and having one's writings or contributions being sold for profit or used for profit without direct permission from the original authors.
You are correct in that nobody has their arms twisted before they contribute here, but it would be very simple for you to include the Forums as well as the Articles as "protected" intellectual property.
The fact that you evidently seem to have a problem with this simple undertaking is, quite frankly, troubling.
Uncle Silly
11-04-2007, 19:38
Attroll, my take on your latest post is this:
Images=originator
Articles=originator
Posts in Forums=WhiteBlaze
That's my take on Troll's explanation as well, although I concur that the site's copyright notice does not precisely reflect this. See here:
All content posted on the message boards and gallery of WhiteBlaze is the exclusive intellectual property of WhiteBlaze. Copyright ownership resides in that content by WhiteBlaze and the Company is free to use any of the content as they wish. Anyone other than WhiteBlaze seeking to reprint, republish, or reproduce content posted on the WhiteBlaze message boards must receive the express written permission from the Webmaster of the WhiteBlaze forum in which the content was posted. By posting on the WhiteBlaze message boards you are agreeing to the above and relinquishing all copyright to the contents of the post(s) to WhiteBlaze.
Everything after the second sentence references the forums/message boards only. However, that first sentence lays claim to the images in the gallery as well. Also, the distinction between "articles" and "message boards" is not made here.
To put it bluntly, I believe Troll and Rock have no wish to deprive us of the fruits of our creative endeavors, but I also believe that copyright notices like this should be as precise as possible. If the policy is understood to be one thing, the notice shouldn't be saying something else.
Perhaps a solution is to amend the copyright notice to the effect that posting an image or article grants to Whiteblaze a non-exclusive license for their use of that image or article. Then Whiteblaze needs no further permission for any further use, but there's no question that the copyright is held by the original author.
Cosmic Crusader
11-04-2007, 20:02
Perhaps someone else cares about this. It could happen!
Thread count shows people do care about this and thats why there are lots of laws and acts and such based around this very subject. I do not mean to downplay your question and hope you have not taken it as such, I just see such threads as floundering in personal opinion and losing touch with what is actual fact vs view.
Like I said before if you want to make money on it some day keep it to yourself - and this goes for picts writing ideas multiple word combos and cool names... kinda sucks for those that just want to be entertained at the keyboard but its the folks that have a creative spirit in how to steal or screw others that spoil it.
WB admins and users do not seem to fit this profile but that does not change laws or legal wording -
your trip seems v cool - good luck and enjoy
thus ends my useless opinion.:rolleyes:
That's my take on Troll's explanation as well, although I concur that the site's copyright notice does not precisely reflect this. See here:
Everything after the second sentence references the forums/message boards only. However, that first sentence lays claim to the images in the gallery as well. Also, the distinction between "articles" and "message boards" is not made here.
To put it bluntly, I believe Troll and Rock have no wish to deprive us of the fruits of our creative endeavors, but I also believe that copyright notices like this should be as precise as possible. If the policy is understood to be one thing, the notice shouldn't be saying something else.
Perhaps a solution is to amend the copyright notice to the effect that posting an image or article grants to Whiteblaze a non-exclusive license for their use of that image or article. Then Whiteblaze needs no further permission for any further use, but there's no question that the copyright is held by the original author.
It has now been rewritten:
All content posted on the message boards and gallery of WhiteBlaze are the exclusive intellectual property of WhiteBlaze and the poster. Copyright ownership resides in that content by WhiteBlaze and the poster. Anyone other than WhiteBlaze seeking to reprint, republish, or reproduce content posted on the WhiteBlaze message boards must receive the express written permission from the Webmaster of the WhiteBlaze forum in which the content was posted or the poster.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-04-2007, 20:07
Well, all righty then.... that's completely clear.
Uncle Silly
11-04-2007, 20:17
Definitely a step in the right direction. Thank you, Troll. I'm still a bit concerned at the second sentence but I'm stumped for an alternative.
Jack Tarlin
11-04-2007, 20:18
This doesn't solve the problem at all, Rick; it effectively leaves the poster out of the loop again. Theoretically, as you've re-written it, a Webmaster could give permission to re-print a Whiteblaze post to anyone we wanted to, and that person could then do anything he wished with it, including sell it or make money off of it.....without the original author being consulted at all.
What is so difficult about re-writing it so it says nothing can be re-printed or re-published without permission of the Webmaster AND the original author?
Right now, it says you need permission from the Webmaster OR the author, which effectively leaves the original author with no options whatsoever if the Webmaster decides to do something with the material that the original author dis-approves of.
People should be able to post stuff here with full confidence that someone isn't going to take their writing at a date and re-use it, sell it, or make a profit off of it. The authors who contribute here deserve to have this wish respected, and I can't for the life of me see what the big problem is here.
Material that appears here should not be re-published or published for profit elsewhere without the original author's knowledge and blessing. This is not that difficult a consept.
Material that appears here should not be re-published or published for profit elsewhere without the original author's knowledge and blessing. This is not that difficult a consept.
Wassamatta Jack. Worried that someone's gonna get rich off of "moosecock?" :D
Jack Tarlin
11-04-2007, 20:27
Ya know Terrapin, if you ever actually contributed anything here that was worth anything or had any redeemable value, you might share my concernes.
But I can understand why you don't.
dixicritter
11-04-2007, 20:29
Actually I thought we did a darn fine job of reworking that in under 2 hours, given that SGT Rock is currently unavailable for conference. We are doing the best we can to make what we've said here in this thread match the copyright notice as closely as possible.
Rift Zone
11-04-2007, 21:23
Clearly a step in the right direction, Dixicritter... I am thankful.
Alligator
11-04-2007, 21:25
Ease off there a second Jack. They started off with "Copyright ownership resides in that content by WB and the poster." That last or should probably be an and but give them some slack to get a second edit:rolleyes: .
All content posted on the message boards and gallery of WhiteBlaze are the exclusive intellectual property of WhiteBlaze and the poster. Copyright ownership resides in that content by WhiteBlaze and the poster. Anyone other than WhiteBlaze seeking to reprint, republish, or reproduce content posted on the WhiteBlaze message boards must receive the express written permission from the Webmaster of the WhiteBlaze forum in which the content was posted or the poster.
Ah, unless ATTroll is an attorney, I would suggest that any legal binding agreement be reviewed by an attorney to ensure that the intent of the agreement is properly worded and will hold up as a legal binding agreement.
Appalachian Tater
11-04-2007, 22:36
Ah, unless ATTroll is an attorney, I would suggest that any legal binding agreement be reviewed by an attorney to ensure that the intent of the agreement is properly worded and will hold up as a legal binding agreement.
Usually people just copy this sort of thing from the big sites that have lawyers on staff to write them.
Rift Zone
11-04-2007, 22:40
Tin Man has a good point. Makes me wonder if FatMan has an opinion... Or a few chioce lines he might use. I have no info on his qualifications but "more than us" seems to fit well.
Jack's got a good point.
Not that any of this is an issue now, but who knows how things will change in the future. My guess is that White Blaze will matter 20 years from now. Its hard to believe how WB has grown over the past 5 years. Five years of excellent work!!!!
BTW, I googled this up, and it seemed like it could make sense. Just a thought.
Members who post to this list retain their copyright but give a non-exclusive license to others to forward any message they post. They also give the list owner the right to archive or approve the archiving of list messages. **All other uses of messages posted to this list requires permission of their authors.**
Cookerhiker
11-05-2007, 08:51
..... The one time I know of another site wanting to use a photo found on WB, the other site's owner was directed to the true owner of the photo - the person who uploaded it - to decide if it could be used....
The ATC contacted me a few weeks ago wanting to include one of my WB photos for an upcoming revised guidebook. They didn't say anything about going to WB first; they considered that I was the owner whose permission was required.
The ATC contacted me a few weeks ago wanting to include one of my WB photos for an upcoming revised guidebook. They didn't say anything about going to WB first; they considered that I was the owner whose permission was required.
Were they going to "lift" it off the website or do thy need the original?
Cookerhiker
11-05-2007, 09:08
The ATC contacted me a few weeks ago wanting to include one of my WB photos for an upcoming revised guidebook. They didn't say anything about going to WB first; they considered that I was the owner whose permission was required.
Were they going to "lift" it off the website or do thy need the original?
They saw it on WB but didn't ask to lift it. Rather they asked me to transmit it to them. After talking to them, they wanted to see a lot of my winter photos from SW Virginia. To minimize file space, I suggested sending them the photos via Snapfish.com or KodakGallery.com both of whom I use. They said the resolution from lifting photos/images from those sites was not good and it was better for me to e-mail the original.
They said the resolution from lifting photos/images from those sites was not good and it was better for me to e-mail the original.
Which is the point I've been trying to make. The photos in the gallery while nice to look at are basically worthless. I'm not a lawyer but, I'd find it hard to believe that anyone could stop you from giving/selling your original to someone else.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-05-2007, 09:34
The ATC contacted me a few weeks ago wanting to include one of my WB photos for an upcoming revised guidebook. They didn't say anything about going to WB first; they considered that I was the owner whose permission was required.My guess is that is what happens 99% of the time - especially if an organization or individual wants to use the photo without the WB watermark embedded. The one time I knew about WB being asked was by a site that wanted to use both the photo and WB watermark on the photo -- the site planned to use the photo plus watermark as an image map (clickable hyperlink) to WB.
My thoughts on the copywrite issue:
As several have noted, the wording on the copywrite notice is legalese - it needs to do two things IMO:
1. protect the owners and agents (like this she-dino moderator) from getting sued if something like this happens:
John Doe, friend of a WB owner, emails his friend (a WB owner) about how to solve some sort of hiking or gear problem or for info about a trail. Owner copies a particularly good post or group of posts or an article about the subject and emails it to John Doe. While no one would question this if neither party was an owner or agent of WB, some people would if one party was an owner or agent.
2. protect the posters from having their posts, articles or photos reused off this site without the poster having approved the use.
Hopefully this can be resolved, but the owners do not possess magic wands (though I do sometimes wonder about Dixi ;)).... it will take a bit of thought and conferring between the owners to decide if the newly revised copywrite notice adequately states that people's work isn't going to be lifted and used in publications or on other websites without the authors' expressed permission and also protects the owners and agents in the event they do something human and share info with their friends.
One of the owners is not easily contactable right now due to being on a temporary assignment out-of-town. This likely isn't going to get discussed by the owners until that owner is back in town so .... how about the rest of us chilling for a while and letting the owners have some time to get this totally resolved?
Cookerhiker
11-05-2007, 09:37
Which is the point I've been trying to make. The photos in the gallery while nice to look at are basically worthless. I'm not a lawyer but, I'd find it hard to believe that anyone could stop you from giving/selling your original to someone else.
Well, I don't know - I'm not much of a techie. But I decided to try myself so I lifted someone else's photo from WB by right-clicking and using "Save As", saved it to a file on my PC, and - using Microsoft Imaging Expert - cropped it ie. stripped off the WhiteBlaze lettering. Saved a new file, printed a 4x6 - it looks good, sharp-looking resolution. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's suitable for publishing; there may well be technical details I'm not aware of.
Well, I don't know - I'm not much of a techie. But I decided to try myself so I lifted someone else's photo from WB by right-clicking and using "Save As", saved it to a file on my PC, and - using Microsoft Imaging Expert - cropped it ie. stripped off the WhiteBlaze lettering. Saved a new file, printed a 4x6 - it looks good, sharp-looking resolution. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's suitable for publishing; there may well be technical details I'm not aware of.
Generally for high-quality printing you need 200-300 dpi. That's why I'd never post a large image (at least, one that I cared about) to the web.
I'm sympathetic to Rift Zone's query and concern, being in a vaguely similar position. But I'm no longer under any delusions concerning the monetary value of scenic nature photos. I admit to being fairly ignorant of copyright law, but it's never been an issue for me.
Well, I don't know - I'm not much of a techie. But I decided to try myself so I lifted someone else's photo from WB by right-clicking and using "Save As", saved it to a file on my PC, and - using Microsoft Imaging Expert - cropped it ie. stripped off the WhiteBlaze lettering. Saved a new file, printed a 4x6 - it looks good, sharp-looking resolution. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's suitable for publishing; there may well be technical details I'm not aware of.
I hope you cropped whiteblaze.net ! ;)
If people are really concerned, they shouldn't post what they perceive to be valuable content here - whether its photographic or otherwise. People "borrow" photos and intellectual property on the 'net all the time. It's just a right click or copy & paste away.
The technology involving printing on paper (my chosen field) and publishing on screen (usually the internet) requires the same image to be prepared two different ways.
For quality color printing on a printing press, the file must be at least 300dpi at the dimensions it will be used, and in the CMYK color space. An image lifted off the web, or prepared with the web as a destination, will typically be 72dpi and the dimensions as small as possible, in the RGB color space. Trying to obtain a good quality print job from one of these images is nearly impossible, especially if the image will be printed in a "large" size.
A full-resolution large file could conceivably be used on a website, although it would take a lot longer to download to the viewer's computer (and for those with dial-up it might not ever download). This is why larger, full-resolution images are typically re-made to a significantly smaller file size (downloads faster!) specifically for use on the web in an application like Photoshop or web-authoring software.
We have clients at my printing business who consistently ask us to just "take" a photo from their website for use in a brochure, for example. Definitely a no-no. I ask them to try to recall the last time they watched a show like Cops on TV, and how those faces of innocent bystanders were blurred so as to not be recognizable. That's an extreme example of "pixellization," and is similar to what a photo lifted from a website would reproduce like on a printing press. When put like this, they see the wisdom in supplying us with larger files at full resolution to print from.
There is almost zero likelihood that anyone could take a photo off the WB site and use it to create something destined for a printing press that anyone would want to look at much less pay $$$ for. I do understand the concern over legal ownership, and it seems like ATTroll and Dixie have taken some steps in the right direction to address this.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-05-2007, 12:08
Many of us do upload photos that are at a high enough resolution to be printed as 4" x 6" prints or even 8" x 10" without losing too much quality. I often do this in case those pictured want to print the photo for their own use.
There is probably no one more guilty of snatching photos from the gallery than that evil photoshopping Dino :o. Is this acceptable to most of the posters? I've only had one complaint and I removed that photoshopped creation ASAP.
Many of us do upload photos that are at a high enough resolution to be printed as 4" x 6" prints or even 8" x 10" without losing too much quality. I often do this in case those pictured want to print the photo for their own use.
Perhaps for personal use but I'll stand with Skyland, it would not be worth trying to sell.
Sure photshop away. I don't care.
Gray Blazer
11-05-2007, 12:21
There is probably no one more guilty of snatching photos from the gallery than that evil photoshopping Dino :o. Is this acceptable to most of the posters? I've only had one complaint and I removed that photoshopped creation ASAP.
I'm afraid to complain. I might get photoshopped!:D
Rift Zone
11-05-2007, 12:28
There is probably no one more guilty of snatching photos from the gallery than that evil photoshopping Dino :o. Is this acceptable to most of the posters?If anything in my gallery was found worthy, I would honored. My blessing applies to all WB members.
Gray Blazer
11-05-2007, 12:31
Ms. Dino, if you do photoshop me, could you use Brad Pitt's face or someone like Gregory Peck??
Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-05-2007, 12:47
I'm afraid to complain. I might get photoshopped!:DWould I do something like that? You're just another harmless hiker....
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b47/lowcarbscoop/GrayBlazer-Harmlesshiker.jpg
Gray Blazer
11-05-2007, 13:46
:) Thankyou, now I feel fully validated.:)
I added a little code so that you could not save the photos in the photo section now by right clicking and saving them.
dixicritter
11-05-2007, 14:00
I added a little code so that you could not save the photos in the photo section now by right clicking and saving them.
What did you do that for?
What did you do that for?
Because everyone was so concerned about there photos getting lifted.
There are still ways around it like in anything else.
JoeHiker
11-05-2007, 14:03
I added a little code so that you could not save the photos in the photo section now by right clicking and saving them.
Very easily circumvented, however. The IE image bar does that as well as any screen capture application.
Let me respectfully suggest you remove this code. I see the purpose but it won't serve that purpose. Anyone who wishes to save such a photo will have little problem doing so. It certainly won't prevent unauthorized dissemination of such images. All it will do is annoy the guy who wants a new screen background on his PC's desktop and so has to take another step.
Rift Zone
11-05-2007, 14:05
I added a little code so that you could not save the photos in the photo section now by right clicking and saving them.A nice touch, but not fool proof... And let the record show, I was never worried about lifting photos. Ownership was my concern.
dixicritter
11-05-2007, 14:07
Because everyone was so concerned about there photos getting lifted.
There are still ways around it like in anything else.
The photos section are supposed to be for our users to share photos with each other. In doing this you've now made it more difficult for them and it won't stop those with ill intentions.
Rift Zone
11-05-2007, 14:12
The photos section are supposed to be for our users to share photos with each other. In doing this you've now made it more difficult for them and it won't stop those with ill intentions.Agreed, I'm with JoeHiker and Dixi, your effort is appreciated but I too vote to remove the code. The WB watermark and ownership going to the originator is plenty to statisfy. (me at least)
The photos section are supposed to be for our users to share photos with each other. In doing this you've now made it more difficult for them and it won't stop those with ill intentions.
Now I am confused.
The photo section is still for sharing photos. You post your photos for others to view. What am I missing here? If you wanted to give your photos away then you could email them to other person. This only semi prevents the unwanted lifting of photos like everyone was concerned about.
Very easily circumvented, however.
Yes your right is can be worked around.
This is a perfect example of, no matter what we do someone is going to complain. This is not directed at you Dixi or JoeHiker.
dixicritter
11-05-2007, 14:20
Now I am confused.
The photo section is still for sharing photos. You post your photos for others to view. What am I missing here? If you wanted to give your photos away then you could email them to other person. This only semi prevents the unwanted lifting of photos like everyone was concerned about.
Yes your right is can be worked around.
This is a perfect example of, no matter what we do someone is going to complain. This is not directed at you Dixi or JoeHiker.
Why should they have to email each other the pictures, when they've already uploaded them?
And if it is so easily gotten around this feature what's the point?
Rift Zone
11-05-2007, 14:20
This is not directed at you Dixi or JoeHiker.Must have been directed to me. You have not dircetly addressed me once. My apologies for pissing you off.
Survivor Dave
11-05-2007, 14:23
Because everyone was so concerned about there photos getting lifted.
There are still ways around it like in anything else.
You know guys, this is a total, well, I won't say it. Just because 1 person had an issue with ownership, why the Frick should all of us suffer. I think that this has totally been blown out of the water.
I just assume go to only my Trail Journals to post pictures now so my family and friends can share them without having the hassle of this total foolishness.
Troll, I sent you, dixicritter, SGT Rock, and Generoll the PM just to cover Rock and all the administrators about the BMTA picture so there won't be any problems. I by no means had any thoughts of you or WhiteBlaze profiteering in any way.
I am starting to wonder what kind of "Community" this is for "Appalachian Trail Enthusiasts".
Rift, you started this "fecal matter". I hope you are satisfied.
Why don't you grow up for Chrissakes and start your own web site. You aren't making too many friends here.
SD
Rift Zone
11-05-2007, 14:30
Rift, you started this "fecal matter". I hope you are satisfied.
...You aren't making too many friends here.
SDSo I've noticed. And no, I'm not pleased with the way this is turning out. I must say, that having the copyright notice more in line with Attroll's philosophy on the matter is a welcome outcome... But the rest of it, I could care less for. Let the ankle biters have their fun at barking at eachother, I prefer to stay away from all that... Little did I know I was putting myself on center stage.
I agree with the sentiments expressed here. The extra code to protect the pictures is not needed. A legally vetted user agreement that protects the rights of any content provider as well as WB is all that is needed.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-05-2007, 14:31
Sorry, AtTroll, but this doesn't seem to be a good idea to me. I have had several people thank me for uploading full resolution pics of them so they could save them.
As has been noted, anyone who wants to lift these photos for republication without getting permission can easily defeat the disabling of the right click feature. I just went out saved a photo from the gallery to my computer without using the screen capture function - so I got the full resolution photo and could reuse it however I please (except that I have the ethics to ask before doing anything off the site with a photo posted here.)
Uncle Silly
11-05-2007, 14:34
I added a little code so that you could not save the photos in the photo section now by right clicking and saving them.
Very easily circumvented, however. The IE image bar does that as well as any screen capture application.
In Firefox (at least in my configuration) all it does is pop-up a warning dialog that says "this function is disabled". The right-click menu still comes up and its "Save Image As..." option is still available.
Let me respectfully suggest you remove this code. I see the purpose but it won't serve that purpose. Anyone who wishes to save such a photo will have little problem doing so. It certainly won't prevent unauthorized dissemination of such images. All it will do is annoy the guy who wants a new screen background on his PC's desktop and so has to take another step.
I agree tend to agree here. As Dixie pointed out, you're trying to allow users to share their photos; one acceptable use for a shared photo is a desktop background or screensaver image.
And you're right; someone's going to complain no matter what you do. Good luck finding the balance. (Hopefully you see this thread as a help to that rather than as a hindrance ... or will, in a few days!)
This is a prime example of trying to do something to address the peoples concerns and no matter what we do there is going to be some that are not happy with it.
I am going to go remove the code now. As far as I am concerned now. This subject is done and over with. There should be no more complaining about things getting lifted from the web site.
I think we all need to settle down a little. I don't think Rift's intent was to make things more difficult around here. No one is accusing WB of trying to run away with any one's goods. But, I think there are some good points raised here about property rights and those should be addressed. Counting on the good will of current owners of the site will not protect people's rights over the long haul. The concerns are reasonable, some of the reactions are not, so let's all calm down and see if we can have a user agreement that works in a way that supports WB and content providers alike and will stand up in court if and when it is ever needed. No amount of coding is going to solve the issue and, as has been suggested, will probably do more harm than good by disabling features that the good members of WB have become accustomed to using.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-05-2007, 14:43
From the "You know it is time to go hiking when....."
its time to go: when people start arguing about Photos on WB, its time to go and take some more pictures... reminds me of kinder garden :D ... this is mine... no it is mine... :bsehttp://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b47/lowcarbscoop/Dinolaughing.jpg
This is a prime example of trying to do something to address the peoples concerns and no matter what we do there is going to be some that are not happy with it.
I am going to go remove the code now. As far as I am concerned now. This subject is done and over with. There should be no more complaining about things getting lifted from the web site.
Thanks Troll. Please don't be so down about the issue. We know you have the best intentions at heart. There just may be a better way of handling the sometimes ornery crowd around here. We all appreciate what you do. :sun
Why don't you do yourselves a favor and close this thread?
Lone Wolf
11-05-2007, 14:49
yeah! lock this bitch up!:banana
and sweep it under the rug before we have an understanding and agreement that solves the issue, after all that is the American Way. :rolleyes:
Survivor Dave
11-05-2007, 14:53
Why don't you do yourselves a favor and close this thread?
Thanks Troll. Please don't be so down about the issue. We know you have the best intentions at heart. There just may be a better way of handling the sometimes ornery crowd around here. We all appreciate what you do. :sun
Ditto to Tin Man about the Thanks Troll and think that MOWGLI might have a good point as well.
Nice touch Frolicking Dino:sun
SD
dixicritter
11-05-2007, 14:54
I think this one is over and done with too. Time to move along.... nothing left to see here. :)