I confess. I often use screenshots when talking about different web sites. The use of Screenshots falls into the murky area of "fair use." The owner of the website clearly has the copyright for the site.
The courts allow bloggers a great deal of leeway in using screenshots. However, there is nothing to prevent the owner of a website to call foul and sue someone for a screen shot.
Commercial use of screenshots is problematic. This is especially true on platforms that pay people for their posts. I think there is a good shot that I will top the $0.02 payment threshold for this post. Those two pennies I hope to receive a very shiny and I think courts might well consider this post to be commercial use.
Being clever: I took a screen shot of the website for the the US Copyright Office. Sites created by government officials are usually considered public domain.
Different platforms seem to have different policies for screenshots. Youtube seems to allow screenshots in videos, but you can't have a screenshot of a video. But some people have received copyright strikes with videos that are only screenshots. I think people have been forced to take down videos because it included screenshots of copyrighted materials.
Many search engines include miniature screen shots of websites in their search engine results. Google somehow gets away with using rather large thumbnails of photos in their image search
I've been wondering: How should the HIVE community treat screen shots?
I thought I would conclude with a screen that would be a copyright violation. The picture is a painting by Frederic Edwin Church in 1857 of Niagara Falls. The painting is public domain. The image is on the page talking about National Gallery's Open Access Policy which allows me to use the image.
So the question I have for Ask-The-Hive is: Where should we draw the line on the use of screen shots on Hive?
I use images I do not own alla time. I always link to the source of the image. Hive is not a publisher, and provides a service we publishers use to make our content available. If you should get a takedown notice, or more likely Hive get one for you, you can then respond appropriately.
Goolag uses takedown notices as vehicles to justify censorship. Goolag's censors pick out stuff that is contrary to the narrative they promote, which they notify their allied copyright holders, outrage providers, or fainting advertisers as needed to supply a takedown notice, and deploy various means of preventing that content from populating their service. This is generally not the common practice except where every effort is being made to control public debate.
I would be willing to chip in for your defense in the event you're sued for damages if you do receive a takedown notice you refuse to honor and the injured party sues for a portion of your illicit proceeds of $.02.
That's a great observation. A lot of these copyright issues appear when the powers-that-be want to silence an unpopular view. Youtube is okay with screenshots in videos ... until the person says something politically incorrect at which point the screenshot is cause for removing the account.
Google really irks me. Google pushes the fair use clause of the copyright laws to the extreme in its products. They then barrel down on users who are essentially doing what Google does.
BTW, the fines charged in copyright cases are usually based on the damages the plaintiff claims to have incurred not on the money I receive. So, if I were sued for copyright infringement, the fine would be in the thousands of dollars and not based on the earnings for my post. If I were dragged to court, the court would probably hit me up for several thousand dollars. The pennies I earn put me at risk for much larger damages.
Sidwrite's article on Copyright starts with a case where a person was fined $8,000 for a copyright violation. There are copyright trolls who rake in millions with copyright claims.
The courts will want dollars. They won't be happy with HIVE POWER, HIVE or even HBD. Courts will demand greenbacks. The small compensation I received for a HIVE post is minuscule in comparison to the damages a court could inflict on me.
The policies one adopts to copyright need to be shaped to court rulings. Court rulings tend to form around conflict.
IMHO, one should design policies with potential conflicts and court rulings in mind.
While many amateur photographers would happy to get a backlink in trade for an image. Professional photographers, those trying to make a living from their craft, are likely to balk at such a trade.
Anyway, you are right that copyright laws are often used to silence people. This is due to the nature of law. People only go to court when they are in conflict.
Speaking of conflict: did you know that there is an account on this platform that doesn't like you?
One thing I will recommend is rational asset management. There is no point in suing someone who has no assets available to steal, and lawyers won't bother. The sum total of my assets are in my Hive wallet.
I don't think Bernie doesn't like me. Why would they so obsess over my posts as to vote and comment on each and every one I make? I think Bernie needs me, like the Earth needs the sun to revolve around. What would they do without their comfortable outrage?
They'd have to come to grips with their own mentality, and they can't face that. I'm one of the only sources of their ability to remain in denial. They need me.
I try not to get a swole head over it.
I guess this article by @sidwrites is the best guide to understand what kind of images we should use and which ones we should avoid.
https://peakd.com/hive-174578/@sidwrites/the-hive-copyright-guide-learn-the-essentials-to-using-images-and-photos
Also do read his other articles, they are gold!
That is a great article. It should be required reading for all new users.
A screenshot is similar to a quote. Fair use is an exception of copyright rules. Courts tend to look favorably on quotes. However, they draw the limit when the quote includes too much of a piece of work.
The first screenshot on my post is clearly a picture of the site. The second "screenshot" is the whole flapping image. This second image is clearly infringing on Frederic Edwin Church's (1826 – 1900) ability to make a living.
So, I am wading in the murky waters of "fair use" wondering where fair use ends and copyright violations begin. It is similar to the question of how long can a quote be before the courts determine that it is copyright violation.
People regularly use screenshots in discussing internet things. I guess the end answer is the amount of creative elements appear in the screenshot.
yepp, he writes great content. I learned a lot from him.
I created a second post which asks specifically if the image below would be considered "Fair Use"?
What is your opinion. Is the image violating Wikipedia's IP?
It is a meme built on a screen shot.
I don't know, I don't think wikipedia will come and get you for this!