jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (4 posts)

Attribution of Odd Images?

  1. Michael J Rapp profile image61
    Michael J Rappposted 5 years ago

    I realized today that when I post an article to Redgage or certain social media sites like FB it puts a thumbnail of the first image of my Hub next to my text.  Of course I am very careful to attribute every picture used in my work, but how the heck do you attribute that, or do you even have to?  I know I can stop it from happening on Redgage, but how do you prevent it on FB?  For that matter, wouldn't anyone who shared my content on FB face the same issue?

    What is standard practice on this?

  2. sunforged profile image67
    sunforgedposted 5 years ago

    The image is linked to source with facebook, so if it is attributed here, you are covered, locations like pinterest and maybe redgage which save a copy of the image might open a different set of issues as you are inadvertently sharing an image without credits which could be passed on thousands of times.

    1. Marisa Wright profile image94
      Marisa Wrightposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      That's what bugs me about Pinterest - their TOS says you mustn't pin copyright images but the casual user isn't going to notice that warning.

      I'm willing to bet most of the images on Pinterest ARE copyright or Creative Commons licensed, so they're all illegal.  Worse, Pinterest's TOS say they retain the right to use or SELL those photos in perpetuity.

  3. Greekgeek profile image99
    Greekgeekposted 5 years ago

    It's really, really useful to read up on this court case. Basically, Fair Use absolves you of copyright violation based on Four Factors which must be judged in court. Wikipedia covers the Four Factors in the initial case really well.

    Initially, the court ruled AGAINST fair use -- see the links above for why. Then Google appealed and got this decision reversed.

    See why Google's use of thumbnails in image search was eventually ruled Fair Use.

    The key factors are:
    1. The use is transformative, providing a service the original image didn't (locating something)
    2. The amount of the original work excerpted was NOT substantial -- a thumbnail, not the whole work
    3. The impact on the original work's potential commercial value or marketability wasn't effected

    Pinterest (I think) fails on 2 and 3. A full-sized copy of a photo distributed for free very definitely impacts the marketability and value of that photo.

    But -- if I'm understanding that court case correctly -- a social bookmark with a small thumbnail would pass factor 2 the same way Google did, and it's too small to compete directly with the original work's commercial value and potential market. (In fact, it may help it.)