Click for Alexseal Click for Mag Bay Click for Abeking Click for Llebroc Click for Frigibar

Copyright Question

Discussion in 'YachtForums Yacht Club' started by Rene GER, Jan 8, 2005.

  1. Rene GER

    Rene GER Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2004
    Messages:
    748
    Location:
    Northern Germany, West Coast
    Hi,

    How is it we can post pictures on this forum, which were not taken by members. Are there copyrights on pictures. On other forums, a normal member cannot post the images by himself.

    In this forum I saw some pictures that were not taken by the members. But, they have made a reference (for example: Picture was taken from...)

    Can I post images from other websites, if I make a reference? Or can I get in any problems with the law. It makes me confused :confused:

    I hope you understand me.

    René
  2. YachtForums

    YachtForums Publisher/Admin

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    18,837
    Location:
    South Florida
    Hi Rene,

    With regards to other forums... it is up to the forum administrator or publisher of the site to determine whether members are free to post pictures... or the pictures must be reviewed (censored) first.

    Certainly, we should NOT post pictures that have copyrights, or without permission from the author of the picture. Much of the information and images on the internet is public domain and does not result in any harm. For me personally, I trust the members of our site to use common sense and make the right judgement because this site belongs to all of us. If there is something questionable, then it is best not to publish it.
  3. Kevin

    Kevin YF Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    2,442
    Location:
    Montreal, Qc, Canada
    I've seen this question come up often on all sorts of forums on a host of different subjects. Basically, if a picture is on a website somewhere in the world, you can post it elsewhere. Obviously, claiming the pic to be your own is wrong... but posting for the sake of arguement or discussion is fine. In the case of some sites they do use copyright protection for their images (ex: when you "right-click" to save or get the URL it isn't allowed) so you can't legally use those, assuming you know the work-around to get those images.
  4. brian eiland

    brian eiland Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,751
    Location:
    St Augustine, Fl and Thailand
    BUT there are a LOT of instances where individuals simply post their photos on the internet without ever expecting to gain a reward for doing so. So by your definition we need to track down each of these individuals to get permission?...each individual who's image appears on google images...some totally unknown because google sourced them from gods knows where.

    I go back to the old days, before the internet, where if you wanted copyright protection you were required to put that little symbol on your photo to inform someone you desired copyright protection. Whats wrong with idea, even today??

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_symbol
  5. AMG

    AMG YF Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    5,102
    Location:
    Sweden
    Thanks for this reference Brian. There we can read that the C-logo is not necessary to protect pictures from being copied, the right is automatic for what you have created. This is why I frequently am asked by photographers to remove pictures our members have copied from other sites and pasted here. Yesterday I had to remove a picture with sailing yacht A that was with a big copyright note as well...

    "In countries party to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, including the modern-day U.S., a copyright notice is not required to be displayed in order for copyright to be established; rather, the creation of the work automatically establishes copyright."
  6. brian eiland

    brian eiland Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,751
    Location:
    St Augustine, Fl and Thailand
    Yes I read that same notice about the copyright logo no longer being required quite a number of years ago. I don't know for sure, but I think that came about by the modern day overload that the copyright office was experiencing in trying to 'officially register copyrights' as they use to. So they just decide to drop it as a requirement?

    But I don't know why they could not have retained the personal commitment be required of each person seeking some sort of protection? That seems to me to be a more representative way.

Share This Page