The image theft question and sigs etc.

[Hue G. Pness]

So, just for discussion purposes, if someone posts an image, say on this board that they do not own the rights to use, and also flys a sig for comercial gain does that not mean they are guilty of image theft as well.

It's more a matter of discussion and interest. I am not bitching so don't take it that way. Also I do not support image theft so don't take it that way either. However, I see a lot of people always jumping on the image theft lynching brigade here. Which I understand because stealing is bad. However, I also see a lot of people post images here to be funny, or because they think a chick is hot, or what ever that they may or may not have license to use. So, if members here are posting images they don't have license to use are they also guilty of image theft? Especially if they are posting the images in question for sig views and they are profiting from their sig.

As I said, it's just a matter of curiosity and something I thought would be interesting to discuss. Thoughts?

[u-Bob]

sig placement

[seeric]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

sig placement

nice sig!

anonymous poster. this is not airek.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by A1R3K

nice sig!

thanks

[czarina]

Ummm NO!

[Spunky]

Do you mean like a gif? So many people do it

[Hue G. Pness]

Originally Posted by Spunky

Do you mean like a gif? So many people do it

I mean like any image someone does not have a license to use. .gif, .jpg etc. So sure a lot of people may do that. My question is what differentiates using an unlicensed photo to post on a message board such as this and slapping one up on a web page with a banner? As I said it is a matter of curiosity really and something I felt would make for good discussion for a change.

[EdgeXXX]

What do you mean?






oh, and see sig

[woj]

it's ok to steal as long as you don't get caught... it's hard to get caught when you steal from someone that doesn't hang around here, hence it's ok to steal from them



(jk, but that's the logic that most people around here use)

[Hue G. Pness]

Originally Posted by woj

it's ok to steal as long as you don't get caught... it's hard to get caught when you steal from someone that doesn't hang around here, hence it's ok to steal from them



(jk, but that's the logic that most people around here use)

Well that is the main question really. Do people here consider say, posting a celeb pic or a pic of some famous nude they don't have license to use stealing while they accept clicks on their sigs or gain pr from their posts?

I honestly thought this would be a fun and interesting conversation but I guess I was off the mark. Once again I am not here to finger point because some of the posts I see are funny or nice to look at . But it is an interesting question.

Perhaps I should seek someone like AaronM's (toss that in hope he will catch it on a board tracker) thoughts. He is a guy who I feel is professional and well versed in content issues so that is why I thought I would query his thoughts on the matter. He knows his stuff and on top of that is a nice guy as well. So, AaronM (toss that in hope he will catch it on a board tracker), hypothetically, if someone grabbed one of your pictures and posted it here with, "She is hot and oh see sig", and the sig lead to some affiliate program you had no dealings with, is that theft?

[woj]

well, posting a celebrity could be considered "fair use"... the point of the thread is to critique her, "I'd hit it", "her tits are too small". etc... Using copyrighted music in a flash banner, a pic of celebrity in a sig that leads to a sponsor, etc, is a different story though...

[Hue G. Pness]

Originally Posted by woj

well, posting a celebrity could be considered "fair use"... the point of the thread is to critique her, "I'd hit it", "her tits are too small". etc... Using copyrighted music in a flash banner, a pic of celebrity in a sig that leads to a sponsor, etc, is a different story though...

So it would be "fair use" as well to start a site with content that was not licensed as long as under each picture there was text that said, "I'd hit it", "her tits are too small". Or think about this. What if someone were to start a message board that was closed to public posting but readable by all and had say 20 or so nics that the person that started the board created. Then nics posted "found" content all day long under those nics with "she is hot", "she needs a boob job" etc type posts and banners to affiliate programs in the created nics sig? So that's fair game as well? After all that would be a message board and not a site? Right?

[woj]

Originally Posted by Hue G. Pness

So it would be "fair use" as well to start a site with content that was not licensed as long as under each picture there was text that said, "I'd hit it", "her tits are too small". Or think about this. What if someone were to start a message board that was closed to public posting but readable by all and had say 20 or so nics that the person that started the board created. Then nics posted "found" content all day long under those nics with "she is hot", "she needs a boob job" etc type posts and banners to affiliate programs in the created nics sig? So that's fair game as well? After all that would be a message board and not a site? Right?

You are missing the whole point, gfy is a webmaster forum, they are not directly profiting from the pictures posted. You could do the same on a photography forum and discuss how good the picture is or is not. Or perhaps on a medical forum, and discuss if someones boob job is of good quality or not.

Once you start to profit from it, like running a site solely for the purpose of posting pics and then having surfers post comments, you are probably crossing into copyright infridgment area.

[Hue G. Pness]

Originally Posted by woj

You are missing the whole point, gfy is a webmaster forum, they are not directly profiting from the pictures posted. You could do the same on a photography forum and discuss how good the picture is or is not. Or perhaps on a medical forum, and discuss if someones boob job is of good quality or not.

Once you start to profit from it, like running a site solely for the purpose of posting pics and then having surfers post comments, you are probably crossing into copyright infridgment area.

So a webmaster who posts a picture of say a Penthouse or Hustler centerfold in a webmaster forum that they do not have license to use, but has a referral link in their signature or a link to their own affiliate program is not profiting from posting that picture even if other webmasters view and click their signature and then sign up for said program and send sales that in turn provide income to the original poster?

[The Sultan Of Smut]

Yes it's stealing. If the pic in my sig belongs to anyone let me know and I'll take it down, I found it on Google...

P.S. Even though I know it's stealing I left the picture up after writing that because I'm a loser.

[woj]

Originally Posted by Hue G. Pness

So a webmaster who posts a picture of say a Penthouse or Hustler centerfold in a webmaster forum that they do not have license to use, but has a referral link in their signature or a link to their own affiliate program is not profiting from posting that picture even if other webmasters view and click their signature and then sign up for said program and send sales that in turn provide income to the original poster?

I don't know, I depends how you do it, if you for example post a pic from penthouse and a pic from your site, and then provoke a discussion "who has better content, penthouse or us?" I don't think there would be anything illegal about that...

[Hue G. Pness]

Originally Posted by The Sultan Of Smut

P.S. Even though I know it's stealing I left the picture up after writing that because I'm a loser.

I'm not out to toss labels around such as loser and such. It's just a topic I find interesting and worthy of discussion. I look at it like this. On one side everyone here starts a lynch mob when they find Joe Bob the Noob's stolen content website. Good, Joe Bob needs to learn not to steal so lay into him and hopefully he learns to purchase licensed content for his uses.

On the other side, we have experienced webmasters posting pictures here and on other boards everyday that they may or may not have license to use and they flying sigs that are meant to gain profit.

So the question is, where is the line? Is Joe Bob the Noob the thief and the webmaster in the right as long as they don't put the images on their own website? You have to admit, this seems to be a rather grey area in image theft. I won't even get into the hotlink issue. That's another topic. :D

I'm just playing devlis advodcate here.

[Hue G. Pness]

Originally Posted by woj

Once you start to profit from it, like running a site solely for the purpose of posting pics and then having surfers post comments, you are probably crossing into copyright infridgment area.

I also forgot to mention, by your logic it would then be ok to join a paysite you owned, download all your exclusive content, and post it on one massive website as long as the site did not cost money or contain any commercial solicitations that would profit the site owner in question?

[The Sultan Of Smut]

I agree with you 100%. Everyone that posts images without the being licensed to use it is stealing the image, unless of coarse it's in the public domain.

[Hue G. Pness]

Originally Posted by The Sultan Of Smut

I agree with you 100%. Everyone that posts images without the being licensed to use it is stealing the image, unless of coarse it's in the public domain.

So, once again playing devils advocate... Why is image theft so highly persecuted by members of webmaster boards when many may be guilty of posting images they do not have license to use on webmaster boards themselves? All the while profiting from their sigs and the pr advantages (or disadvantages if they are trolls) of posting on boards. It seems slightly hypocritical, no?

Once again I feel the need to post a disclaimer because people are sometimes slow. I do not support or endorse image theft and I am not pointing fingers at anyone that participants on this message board.

[The Sultan Of Smut]

Because one way or another we all have two faces and different reasons for justifying what is essentially wrong. It may be stealing images, cheating on our significant other, or grabbing a towel from a hotel. I'm quite sure that most programs realize their images are being ripped off huge so have to say something when they actually catch someone in hopes to stop it from happening too much and that is totally understandable. I just hope they don't do it with a stolen image in their sig.

It's a good topic you bring up and I think there's more than one reason to explain it. The bottom line is that I don't think there is a single person on this board that isn't here for financial gain and using images you have no right to use for profit is wrong.

Fuck, now I gotta get rid of my sig because I've put too much guilt on myself. Thanks a lot dude, I just put that one up.

booooooooooo

[Hue G. Pness]

Originally Posted by The Sultan Of Smut

It's a good topic you bring up and I think there's more than one reason to explain it.

Thanks. That was the drive behind this thread to start with. Let's find the reasons. For curiosity's sake. Tough questions deserve tougher answers.

Devil mode: I'm also interested in the fact that this thread has had many views but many of the more vocal people on here have not posted their thoughts on the subject.

P.S. Sorry about the sig. I wasn't gonna complain or say anything but you made the choice on your own and that gets a

[psili]

Here's my take; solely as personal opinion (because laws are just based on popular opinion of the time).

First:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

sig placement

-- Fuck you and your sig-spot, pansie.

Add something, even something you try to make useful, to the conversation. Even if it's an attempt at being useful but ends up completely useless, like my post below.
Pansie.

Second, I'm guessing you are referring to some of the sigs / ads that blatantly sport a/an image(s) from copyrighted material. Now there's laws about being able to change something, I think it's around 15% of the original, where that new image is no longer part of the original - thus you're protected. It's all gray, sketchy, and I wouldn't fuck with any of it. (Maybe it's just text I'm thinking of????)

However, and this is my own opinion, with no sense of law or duty to the law: I would say, anyone using copyrighted material they have no license to use, in their sig / banner to SELL something non-related is a thieving, fucking, worthless, pansie bitch.

And this is where my personal opinion comes into play: If someone's using some copyrighted work for pun, artistic impression, without monetary gain from it, I see no problem with it. It's used as a piece of "play", not intended to resell or monetize of it.

Then again, I'm rather retarded. So disregard this post.
And all apologies for it.

[The Sultan Of Smut]

One thing I forgot to mention was that if an image used in a 'Would you hit it' thread had the owner's watermark on it that might make a difference since at least the program that produced the content is getting some exposure. At least if it was my content I wouldn't mind anyway.

[fetishblog]

Who stole what?!

[Hue G. Pness]

Originally Posted by The Sultan Of Smut

One thing I forgot to mention was that if an image used in a 'Would you hit it' thread had the owner's watermark on it that might make a difference since at least the program that produced the content is getting some exposure. At least if it was my content I wouldn't mind anyway.

So if someone started a pay site called www.heywouldyoufuckinghitthisshit.com and used all your water marked images as content that would be ok? Or on another note, if they started a free site of the same nature with banners for tons of affiliate programs aside from yours that would be ok with you as well?

[The Sultan Of Smut]

Originally Posted by Hue G. Pness

So if someone started a pay site called www.heywouldyoufuckinghitthisshit.com and used all your water marked images as content that would be ok? Or on another note, if they started a free site of the same nature with banners for tons of affiliate programs aside from yours that would be ok with you as well?

Nope, that wouldn't be cool but you took my example in a different direction. The example I gave was using a watermarked image on a webmaster board where the content provider would be having his/her content exposed to hundreds or thousands of potential affiliates. You're arguing that the circumstances surrounding the act should be acted upon the same way no matter the intent but from what I've seen this isn't the case for any type of law.

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by Hue G. Pness

Well that is the main question really. Do people here consider say, posting a celeb pic or a pic of some famous nude they don't have license to use stealing while they accept clicks on their sigs or gain pr from their posts?

I honestly thought this would be a fun and interesting conversation but I guess I was off the mark. Once again I am not here to finger point because some of the posts I see are funny or nice to look at . But it is an interesting question.

Perhaps I should seek someone like AaronM's (toss that in hope he will catch it on a board tracker) thoughts. He is a guy who I feel is professional and well versed in content issues so that is why I thought I would query his thoughts on the matter. He knows his stuff and on top of that is a nice guy as well. So, AaronM (toss that in hope he will catch it on a board tracker), hypothetically, if someone grabbed one of your pictures and posted it here with, "She is hot and oh see sig", and the sig lead to some affiliate program you had no dealings with, is that theft?

Yep. And board tracker did not clue me in....My daddy sent me the link on ICQ.

[AaronM]

I doubt that I would be pissed off about something as simple as that though....But I would still consider it stealing.

[psili]

Originally Posted by AaronM

I doubt that I would be pissed off about something as simple as that though....But I would still consider it stealing.

I think this is an interesting topic.

I'm no dealer of content, but I'd be fucking pissed if someone starting posting code I wrote and then said, "Oh yea, you like this free script -- see sig." However, if they had access to code I wrote, it'd be either because they hacked my host or they freelanced me and started whoring my shit out. Either case, I'd be fucking pissed.

But really, not being in the content business, is the way I think about what I write different from how content producers think about the photos and videos they produce?

[Hue G. Pness]

Originally Posted by The Sultan Of Smut

Nope, that wouldn't be cool but you took my example in a different direction. The example I gave was using a watermarked image on a webmaster board where the content provider would be having his/her content exposed to hundreds or thousands of potential affiliates. You're arguing that the circumstances surrounding the act should be acted upon the same way no matter the intent but from what I've seen this isn't the case for any type of law.

So it's cool if webmaster "X" posts in thread on webmaster boards with images you worked hard to produce, paid a lot to produce, as long as your watermark is intact? Even though that picture is not linked to your product? All the while webmaster 'X" is getting sig views, clicks, and pr for a product you have no affiliation with.

Oh and what about all the images posted on webmaster boards that may or may not be licensed by the poster and don't contain watermarks?

What if Joe Bob the Noob starts a site called AdultWebmasterWaterMarkedImages.com and posts all your work as well as others? Is that cool too? Keep in mind his sig links to a program that will make him money and not you. However the site is "aimed" at webmasters, so that is cool by you right? Joe Bob the Noob is jacking your pictures, but hell other webmasters might see your watermark and purchase your content. And all the other webmasters that Joe Bob the Noob got to sign up under his referral code in his sig because he posted a "She is hot" pic with your watermarked images, that's cool too?

[The Sultan Of Smut]

Originally Posted by Hue G. Pness

So it's cool if webmaster "X" posts in thread on webmaster boards with images you worked hard to produce, paid a lot to produce, as long as your watermark is intact? Even though that picture is not linked to your product? All the while webmaster 'X" is getting sig views, clicks, and pr for a product you have no affiliation with.

Oh and what about all the images posted on webmaster boards that may or may not be licensed by the poster and don't contain watermarks?

What if Joe Bob the Noob starts a site called AdultWebmasterWaterMarkedImages.com and posts all your work as well as others? Is that cool too? Keep in mind his sig links to a program that will make him money and not you. However the site is "aimed" at webmasters, so that is cool by you right? Joe Bob the Noob is jacking your pictures, but hell other webmasters might see your watermark and purchase your content. And all the other webmasters that Joe Bob the Noob got to sign up under his referral code in his sig because he posted a "She is hot" pic with your watermarked images, that's cool too?

I give up, see sig.

[3M TA3]

Originally Posted by woj

it's ok to steal as long as you don't get caught... it's hard to get caught when you steal from someone that doesn't hang around here, hence it's ok to steal from them



(jk, but that's the logic that most people around here use)

wow, the bot is getting smarter!

[sumphatpimp]

stop asking silly noob questions and click the sig