A note on using images in blogs
November 20th 2006 02:59
Okay, just a nit-picking issue that bugs me... What do you think the GNU free document licence is? And why do you think it authorises you to use any image whatsoever? 
My understanding is this. When I write something, I have full rights over it (or, in this case, Orble has full rights). And I can restrict and parcel out people's usage of my creation as I wish.
What the GNU licence means is that I authorise my creation to be used by anyone whatsoever, and modified in any way they like, as long as they mention that the creation was licensed under GNU. They can even print copies of my article and charge for them: any usage is permitted.
What it doesn't mean is that you're allowed to grab any image you like. The fact that you're making your own text freely distributable doesn't automatically give you the right to use other people's text or images or to purport to make them freely distributable, especially since you have a commercial interest in your domain blog, and Orble has commercial interests all blogs.
And it doesn't authorise you to use any Wikipedia image you like. If you look at the bottom of a Wikipedia page, it's the text that's licensed, not the images. Furthermore, many of the images on Wikipedia are alleged to be "fair use". And just because something is fair use in the context of a Wikipedia encyclopaedia entry doesn't mean it'll be fair use in the context of your blog.
Embedded Youtube videos I reckon are also dodgy, strictly speaking anyway. If the copyright of the video belongs to someone else, then why doesn't the first frame of that video, which you're displaying on your page?
The reality might be that people are quite happy for their images to be used on your blog (especially, for instance, when it's a film poster or other promotional image). But I do think that if you're going to use images or vids, you should know what you're doing...
My understanding is this. When I write something, I have full rights over it (or, in this case, Orble has full rights). And I can restrict and parcel out people's usage of my creation as I wish.
What the GNU licence means is that I authorise my creation to be used by anyone whatsoever, and modified in any way they like, as long as they mention that the creation was licensed under GNU. They can even print copies of my article and charge for them: any usage is permitted.
What it doesn't mean is that you're allowed to grab any image you like. The fact that you're making your own text freely distributable doesn't automatically give you the right to use other people's text or images or to purport to make them freely distributable, especially since you have a commercial interest in your domain blog, and Orble has commercial interests all blogs.
And it doesn't authorise you to use any Wikipedia image you like. If you look at the bottom of a Wikipedia page, it's the text that's licensed, not the images. Furthermore, many of the images on Wikipedia are alleged to be "fair use". And just because something is fair use in the context of a Wikipedia encyclopaedia entry doesn't mean it'll be fair use in the context of your blog.
Embedded Youtube videos I reckon are also dodgy, strictly speaking anyway. If the copyright of the video belongs to someone else, then why doesn't the first frame of that video, which you're displaying on your page?
The reality might be that people are quite happy for their images to be used on your blog (especially, for instance, when it's a film poster or other promotional image). But I do think that if you're going to use images or vids, you should know what you're doing...
| 100 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Thats how you do it PMC
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
The Deal with Copyright
And fair dealing is a nebulous subject.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
1. In your post, you write:
"Wikipedia is operating under the GNU Free Document License. This license is brilliant... you can use materials from Wikipedia, as long as you acknowledge the source, and allow your work to be free as well."
I reckon this para, by itself, is misleading (and has misled people!), though you do go on to qualify it. There's plenty of times when people seem to think that it-appeared-on-Wikipedia gives them open slather.
I'm not sure any images in Wikipedia are licensed under GNU...
2. Re film posters...
In the post above, I suggested that film posters might not be okay. In your post, you suggest: "you can use copyrighted images on your post, as long as you are reviewing or making a critical commentary on that item. For example: It's OK to review a movie like Candy, and use the film poster or screencaps from the movie in the post."
For a while, I was troubled by this, because: (a) you're unlikely to be commenting on the poster itself directly; and (b) commenting on the item doesn't by itself seem to be sufficient, because you go on to write "It's not OK to post a picture taken by some photographer, without permission" (and presumably this applies even if you're commenting on the photo).
Well, I think it's true that images, including film posters, don't automatically come under "fair use" when you're reviewing them (there are other factors, including the possibility of obtaining the item commercially, which might make use unfair). But, ignoring the case law and just based on reading the legislation, it seems that film posters are probably okay (as far as the first issue goes; I'm assuming the second in most circumstances will be okay as well):
"41. A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if it is for the purpose of criticism or review, whether of that work or of another work, and a sufficient acknowledgement of the work is made." (Copyright Act 1968 (Cth))
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
"Well imbedding youtube video's should keep orble in the clear legally, you're simply linking to a host, if it's that bad they'll sue the hoster, not the one linking to it. If they come orble's way (doubt it) removing it is simple enough."
Well, the question is whether simply linking can count as breach. (Isn't it irrelevant, strictly speaking, whether the link is easily removed, that the responsibility is or isn't the host's rather than the author's, and that there's a very low probability that the author would give a crap?)
To make the position more plausible that linking can count as breach... Well, one can also embed images, right? So would you argue that embedding a copyrighted image is simply linking and wouldn't count as breach?
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Honestly when imbeding a youtube video all you are doing is providing an address for people to get to the video on youtube.
youtube's policy is that you should not upload copywrited video's, if you're the one linking to it you are assuming said video's are not copywrited to begin with.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
I didn't realize the Youtube policy, and this is an important point -- thanks for mentioning it!
Though it doesn't completely relieve you of responsibility. Partly because everyone knows that a lot of the stuff on Youtube is copyright...
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by Kams
Geek Metro
Bloggers Tips
Msn also have YouTube like SoapBox. All of them provide a "Embedded code", the only purpose of that code is to bringing the frame into your page. They wouldn't have gave that code if they didn't want anyone to put it on pages.
And as for your Wikipedia Image concern, its true all medias are not under GNU, but majority of them are under Creative commons 2.5 license (Share alike-you have to give credit).
You can find more about it here.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Re your first point, photocopiers can also be used both legally and illegally. I don't think the fact that Msn have provided the ability to embed stuff means it's their legal opinion that you should feel free to embed anything whatsoever.
Re Wikipedia images, this is very true, and I'm glad you point it out, and I don't think it's inconsistent with anything I've said. Wikipedia on their copyright information page specifically note that they much prefer images to be public domain. And it's probably also true that many of the images on Wikipedia can be used without giving anyone credit at all.
Comment by Kams
Geek Metro
Bloggers Tips
And for the second one yes i agree. I was just pointing that either GNU, Common or whatever as long as you follow copyright policy pointed just under the image/media.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
This is a bit of a moot topic, far as I can tell orble hasn't been in hot water over anything, heck, I'd hazzard to say the only images that we probably couldn't put on orble are those you wouldn't want to anyway, such as pornographic images.
Comment by Kams
Geek Metro
Bloggers Tips
If you remember MySpace law suit last week, you will also rember that they got sued for hosting the copyrighted video, on the other hand Orkut users showed the same video but embed (so didn't got sued).
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Kams, you write:
"You missed my first point, the video embed is perfectly fine as long as you do not modify/reproduce and use it for commercial purposes."
-- But Orblists and Orble itself does use it for commercial purposes...
And, incidentally, what do you make of the fact that it's also possible to use the embed tag to embed images?
"If any user who uploaded the video on MSn by violating copyright law and you showed it in your site, its not your problem since MSN privacy policy stated so."
-- Well, could point me to the privacy policy? I've poked around a bit without being able to find much info on Soapbox, or the policy itself. I'm curious what it says exactly.
"If you remember MySpace law suit last week, you will also rember that they got sued for hosting the copyrighted video, on the other hand Orkut users showed the same video but embed (so didn't got sued)."
-- This is a good point, but it could be more a matter of going for the biggest (or wealthiest) fish, than Orkut not being liable. I mean, this whole discussion is about what is strictly legal, not about what people are likely to prosecute you for.
Ahmed, you write:
"I guess it's difficult to swallow the fact, but all video's uploaded to youtube should follow youtubes copyright policy, hence you should with confidence be able to link to video's on it and even link to it."
-- Well... This doesn't seem to follow in the case of music file sharing (everything uploaded/uploadable is supposed to be copyright-free), so why should it follow in the case of videos? Besides, what if the video were pretty obviously in breach of copyright (like footage from a TV broadcast or a movie)?
Comment by Kams
Geek Metro
Bloggers Tips
You mistake-
This is a good point, but it could be more a matter of going for the biggest (or wealthiest) fish, than Orkut not being liable. I mean, this whole discussion is about what is strictly legal, not about what people are likely to prosecute you for.
in case you don't know orkut belongs to Google, no one in web industry is much bigger fish then them
I think you are loosing the trail of copyright meaning. Not all copyrights are exclusive. Some allow community uses, some allow personal, some for share alike. Video sharing and picture sharing sites come under share a like copyright (means you give credit).
Orble is a community, not a commercial site. Google earn a lot from Blogger.com, but does that make commercial site? no still its a social networking site.
You are lost here, why they call video sharing site (if they will consider it copyright violation)? And why would they give you link code and embed code if , showing that player outside MSN would be copyright violation
And when is the last time you saw any site/organization got sued for displaying YouTube or Google Video in their own player?
Comment by Kams
Geek Metro
Bloggers Tips
From SoapBox site.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
A quick reply (sorry; am bogged down writing other posts at the moment).
"in case you don't know orkut belongs to Google, no one in web industry is much bigger fish then them
Well, I meant "biggest fish" in the sense "most obvious violators". But one needn't draw the conclusion from that fact that someone hasn't been sued that their actions aren't illegal.
"I think you are loosing the trail of copyright meaning. Not all copyrights are exclusive. Some allow community uses, some allow personal, some for share alike. Video sharing and picture sharing sites come under share a like copyright (means you give credit)."
Sure -- there's different types of copyright. But I don't think the point's relevant. After all, it's the exclusive types that we're worried about.
"Orble is a community, not a commercial site. Google earn a lot from Blogger.com, but does that make commercial site? no still its a social networking site.
I guess I'd want to see the matter tested. It's true that things can be characterized in different ways; this was part of the issue with Kazaa, wasn't it? But there is a prima facie sense in which if you're making money from displaying videos, you're engaging in a commercial process. Do you really disagree that it could be characterized this way?
"You are lost here, why they call video sharing site (if they will consider it copyright violation)? And why would they give you link code and embed code if , showing that player outside MSN would be copyright violation
Well, see the point above about photocopiers.
"And when is the last time you saw any site/organization got sued for displaying YouTube or Google Video in their own player?"
Well, "this whole discussion is about what is strictly legal, not about what people are likely to prosecute you for".
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Comment by Kams
Geek Metro
Bloggers Tips
Kazza used to share "Artist generated content"
and here "User generated content". in this case the user who created the content upload the content (well most of the case
In the end i am saying using videos from those sharing site is way safer then using it from somewhere else, since in this case you wont held liable. that is my point
Comment by Kams
Geek Metro
Bloggers Tips
This is the top portion of that page----
Link to or embed a video
You can link (A connection to another Web address. When you click a link, your Web browser displays the other address.) to videos and embed (To make something an integral part of. For example, when you embed a video on your website or blog, the video can be played in that location.) videos on your website or blog (Short for weblog. An online journal. Each entry typically contains personal thoughts and Web links, with the newest entries listed first.) .
Link to a video
1. Sign in to Soapbox on MSN Video.
2. Locate the video that you want to link to.
3. Click the share tab.
4.
In the link box, right-click the link, and then click Copy.
5. On the Web page or blog where you want to add the link, right click, and then click Paste.
Note
To include a thumbnail of the video, right-click the link with image box, and then click Copy.
Embed a video
1. Sign in to Soapbox on MSN Video.
2. Locate the video that you want to embed.
3. Click the share tab.
4. In the embed player box, right-click the link, and then click Copy.
5. On the Web page or blog where you want to embed the video, right click, and then click Paste.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Thanks for including that, but all I see is instructions on how to embed. I don't see a notice saying, "If you embed a copyrighted video, you will be free from prosecution."
So, yeah, I'm going to pull out the photocopier argument out again. Just because someone gives you the power to copy doesn't mean they think you can (or are authorizing you to) copy whatever you like.
"In the end i am saying using videos from those sharing site is way safer then using it from somewhere else,"
Probably true.
"since in this case you wont held liable."
Well, this is sort of the whole of what we're discussing.
But I'm kind of skeptical you're going to find written anywhere, "It's okay to embed any of our videos. If they breach copyright, you won't be liable -- we will!".
Comment by Kams
Geek Metro
Bloggers Tips
As far as i know those stuff never clearly disclose.
Have you seen any discloser somewhere that "if you use this you wont held responsible", anything ?
I don't think so
The difference between a photocopier and a Video share is, in photocopier you can copy anything you like, but in video sharing their logos and link are always there. You can link a specific video with a specific link
If you are looking for written confirmation like "keep away from children, choke able", you won't find it lawyers are too much clever not to put like that.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
-- I've since found that some Wikipedia images are licensed under GNU.
-- What's ICAAN?
Comment by dswhite
Age is Just a Number
Does this mean that images from google included in my blogs postings are not okay?
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Most images don't hold an exclusivity to websites, ones that do are usually with games or fashion, but even those are hard to come by. Most recent I recall is Halo 3 screenshots being released on a magazine which got some people in trouble for scanninga nd uploading...
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
The basic answer is that it depends on the particulars of the image. The particular image might well be public domain.
But the sheer fact that they appear on Google doesn't make them public domain.
Whether anyone can be bothered to complain if you go ahead and use them anyway is another matter...
Comment by dswhite
Age is Just a Number