Based on the answers to the question I posted yesterday - motivated in part by the TOS difficulties with Pinterest and the new Pin It button - many people see no reason to cite photgraphs that are:
a) in the public domain
b) that belong to the author
This presents a confusion to me.
How is a reader supposed to tell if the photograph is public domain or copyrighted by the author of the hub if no citation is used and both are correct procedures for such types of photographs?
This may explain why public domain photographs are often un-cited. But it would seem to me to be a strong reason to cite your own photographs even more than I thought before even if all you do is say on one photograph that "All the photographs, unless other-wise stated - are the property of the author." Otherwise, someone thinking "hey, I want to use this photograph and it doesn't say I can't" may use it for his own purposes and the photographer doesn't even get a by-line.
That is also why I use my real name, even though some people think it is unwise. I want to be able to prove that I am whom I say I am. A pen-name could be anyone
right on, Flora. You make an excellent point about using a real name. People regularly post on facebook as well so your identity is revealed anyways.
Hi Flora (Your real name): I never realized how important it was to take ownership of photos in this manner. I always cite the genesis of other pictures - but never my own!
Thanks for the heads up! (Hi, mom!)
The rule with photo copyright is simple. If there is no citation, the photo is copyright. Unfortunately most people don't realize that.
Most photographers who publicize their work will have a portion of their page that states " All printed and photographed material is not to be reproduced and remains without explicit written permission". Photos appearing randomly on various sites without any reference to ownership seem to be public domain. But I personally cite the page I acquired the photo from. This will show that if an individual approaches me and questions my right to use his/her material,,,,,,I have proof that I used said photo/photos from a public place and have credited that public place as a photo referrence,,,!!!!
yes, Dad. That is what seemed odd to me. If public domain is not required to be cited on HP, then fine. But like I said, if you don't use your own name here instead of a pen name and don't cite either, how can you prove the photos are yours if someone uses them in a way you object?
So far this seems to be a conversation within my own family, three artists. Oh well.
Well, I don't want to crash the family reunion, but I'm curious, too. I don't have any answers, but I would love to learn more through this thread. Mind if a friend drops in with the family? ;-)
no problem It was never meant to be be a family discussion only (reminds me of how people will often text each other when they are in the same room these days since we all live in the same town and don't need to call long distance...)
Most interesting discussion. I have been trying to go back through my work and clean up improperly cited photos from early hubs. I (nowadays) always cite works in Public Domain, and cite the source of my own photos as "Author," but until reading this I hadn't realized that I was leaving my own photos wide open to wholesale "borrowing."
I shall have to be more faithful in adding a disclaimer. Thanks for the info.
Although I am not making a recommendation one way or the other due to the personal nature, and in my opinion, it's a decision each individual member must reach subsequent to his / her own due diligence, a "REAL" Name is certainly not a pre-requisite to rightfully claim "Ownership" or "Creatorship" of your web based works - I believe any reasonable judge and or jury, if taken to task, would recognize "Intent" of an Owner / Creator to protect His / Her work regardless of what I believe to be a non-material fact such as disclosure and or voluntary non-disclosure of identity -
Identity theft is unquestionably real and unfortunately happens every day hence, perhaps the reason for "Pen Names" etc of which should not by legal measures, diminish "Ownership Rights" or "Intellectual Property", and or your rights of protection or subsequent pursuit of remedy -
The practice of using alternate monikers by business owners to conduct day to day activities is of course common place throughout the virtual and tangible merchandising universe - Although certain liability aspects may change, from my experience and research, inherent rights of ownership, just like a Photographers / Artists, are typically not diluted by merely exercising this option -
The decision to use a "Real" or "Alternate" name is essentially a personal preference and not an indication of the extent of legal protection - I believe it's easy enough to prove ownership in either case -
- Alternative Prime -
This thread was a reference more to the fact that people don't cite anything at all on their own photographs. Nothing. Not even "property of the author" and therefore you cannot tell that it is copyrighted instead of public domain.
As I say in my original post:
"But it would seem to me to be a strong reason to cite your own photographs even more than I thought before even if all you do is say on one photograph that "All the photographs, unless other-wise stated - are the property of the author." "
In other words, some people don't put any source at all! I'm not suggesting that RedElf can't put RedElf down as the photographer.
*this is a thread about citing photographs and copyright, NOT about identity theft concerns"
Here is the question I posted and you can read the answers yourself to see that the people who disagreed with me were approaching the public domain photo and the personal copyrighted photo the same way:
http://hubpages.com/question/153847/why … urce-on-hp
This will tell you why I opened the thread in the first place.
This will be my *only*comment on this change of topic in the thread.
My reply was simply a "Good Faith" response to the following quotes inserted by other interested members, comments of which did appear in my estimation to "Stray" into the realm of Writing & Publishing under a "Real Name" verses a "Pseudonym", and which preference if any, was the "Wiser" choice as it relates to claiming ownership of your original photos - That's how the comments were interpreted even if the intent was not to articulate this particular subject -
Each individual photo contained within any published works on the Internet or elsewhere, although probably not mandatory, should be accompanied by brief annotations indicating a specific originating source either "Private Ownership" and the details pertaining to "Rights" or, an indication if they were extracted from "Public Domain" archives - Or, in the case of multiple photo usage, an all inclusive short sentence placed strategically in an easily visible location in which encompasses all individual images published on a single page should also work to serve notice and inform all visitors - It's essentially standard proceedure -
Just trying to help --> Carry on with the conversation - Alternative Prime -
P.S. Here are the quotes I replied to in my original comment -
"That is also why I use my real name, even though some people think it is unwise. I want to be able to prove that I am whom I say I am. A pen-name could be anyone"
"right on, Flora. You make an excellent point about using a real name. People regularly post on facebook as well so your identity is revealed anyways."
Not that my images are even worth trying to protect, but I cite them all under the pen name I use. It's a well established pen name, and it's very much associated with my legal name wherever the pen name is used (or paid or paying taxes). I mostly claim/cite my own images so that nobody else will accuse me of anything other than using my own.
Yes, citing them in any way instead of putting no citation at all will put ownership. The pictures I was seeing had nothing written at all as a source and as such I couldn't tell if they were public domain or copyrighted. They didn't even have a disclaimer at the top saying "all photos have been taken by the author."
It also gets more confusing when some people mix and match as it were. They have photos of the same article from different sources, some public and some their own.
Also, citing your photos under your pen name provides over time some traffic from Google images.
I have taken to creating power point slides that I then save as a jpeg and upload on HubPages and then link or cite my HubPage url.
Getting your pen name out there is important to the SEO - images are another piece of the puzzle and serve as a "back rub" that boosts your creditability.
by Bill Yovino 6 years ago
I check out many of the new hubs as they come across my Home page. I'm interested to see how many people use their own original work, how many correctly use and credit public domain photos, and how many are outright stealing photos from the Internet.When someone posts a professional looking photo...
by Liz Elias 5 years ago
Sorry to keep bugging folks, but I'd rather be safe than sorry...I found the "perfect" photo to go along with a poem of mine...but the ONLY information about it, regarding whether there is or is not a copyright is this:"Date: ca. 1906. Photo from the Santa Cruz Public Library...
by ruthwalker 4 years ago
Hi there, joined HP a little while ago but only just got round to writing my first hub. It is going to be an historical piece but seem to be spending most of my time trying to find who owns copyright to the images I would like to use, which are all dated between 1920's and 1950's, and then trying...
by Will Apse 23 months ago
I haven't tried to have a plagiarized page removed from Google search since the change to the niches. How do we prove ownership if we no longer have access to webmaster tools for our pages? My recent request was rejected on this basis:'Thanks for reaching out to us.It is unclear to us whether or...
by Celina Martin 5 years ago
Just wondering, is it necessary to mention source link while using photos from search engines. And, if I do will it be beneficial for my hub or not?
by Kate Swanson 6 years ago
Could one of the HubPages team confirm the official position re watermarked pictures? I know the rules say "prominent" watermarks are not allowed, but I can also understand the desire of Hubber photographers to protect their photos.What's the definition of "prominent"? Is...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|