Okay. To answer the questions of proper attribution—qurator apparently has a specific standard for membership, which should be adhered to if one wants to become a member.
They, however, do not necessarily set the standard for Steemit (or the rest of the Internet). However, if you uphold the highest standard, you really can't go wrong.
There's actually two different things happening. One is attribution, which is providing the image source. The other is permission, which is using images designated for reuse, or modified for reuse, etc.
The convenience of using the listed services is they are already royalty free and mostly designated for personal and commercial use. By virtue of those images appearing on those sites, the actual image producer has given permission/waived their rights to further determine usage.
So, those free sites are the absolute best to avoid permission issues if you can actually find an image that fits your needs.
Otherwise, unless you want to be a member of qurator or some other entity with a specific set of standards, sourcing the image to the page where it came from is fine as long as you're certain you have permission. That might include actually asking. Google isn't the image source ever because they only collect the images into one place for your browsing convenience.
I hope that explains things @magicalmoonlight, @silentdiscourse, @lynncoyle1
Yeah, that makes sense. That's going to be tricky for some of my threads. but it is what it is I guess.
Thanks to @lynncoyle1 for bringing it more to my attention and to you as well @glenalbrethsen!
Now here's an interesting thought.. What about GIFs?
"There is no standing legal decision that specifically determines whether GIFs made from copyrighted material qualify as infringement. When there is a dispute over a GIF and it's original creators, it all comes down to the doctrine of fair use.
Fair use is determined by the nature of the GIF, who created it and its intended purpose. Generally, something is considered fair use when the original material is used for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as commentary, criticism or parody. According to Jeff John Roberts of Fortune, GIFs can be considered “transformative” under copyright law because they do not undermine the market for the original work: “No one, for instance, is going to watch a Star Wars GIF instead of the original movie"
https://modicum.agency/blog/animated-gifs-fair-use-copyright-law/
So, this might in fact be a loophole to any images you'd like to use... Just make them into a GIF... lol
There certainly is a lot of gray area when it comes to a lot of things happening on the internet. Gifs and memes tend to fall more into fair use because they've been altered from their original intent or state. No one really owns it anymore or can claim it after its altered.
A photograph taken by a pro photographer and placed on their website is still in its original state being used for its original purpose, so attribution and permission would be necessary. The same would go for a photo on a news site, or on a number of news sites because they're all sharing the same photo, with attribution and permission.
As far as what could happen in a failure to comply situation, it's normally along the lines of a cease and desist order, though it could go beyond that if the creator wanted to somehow prove that your use infringed upon their ability to profit from their image.
In my mind, it's always better to have your ducks in a row, as inconvenient as that might be. At least for me, having exactly the right image to fit every aspect of my post hasn't made a whole lot of difference.
Thanks for the really clear comments.
Have up voted for visibility.
Your friendly @asapers
Thank you for doing that @shai-hulud! @glenalbrethsen did a great job explaining for sure:)
Again thank you so much for picking up the slack when you saw it here @glenalbrethsen!! Seriously so kind of you! I was off of here for the day and came back to you finishing all of my work for me haha
And so articulate as well! Cheers :)
Oh, I wouldn't call it picking up the slack. It's actually more of a defense (though I don't think I'm much of a lawyer, really :) )
With 15 years of newspapering and officially three years in Social Media (unofficially probably double that), I've learned something about permission and attribution. So, when you related what you were told by the person at qurator, I thought, "No. That's your rules for membership. And they're good rules, but going to one of the free image sites isn't the only way to do it properly."
In other words, it was more of my way of saying, "Aw, come on! Let her in!"
Since others had questions about what you were told, I figured I'd take a crack a that, too. :)
As it is, I'm glad you were able to get out for the day. Aside from whatever personal good that may have done for mind, body and spirit, does that mean you have more sights, sites and insights about Playa del Carmen to post? :)
haha I love your support then!! I kind of thought the same thing, but it's their group, go I've gotta play by their rules ;)
And yes! I took some more pictures and have a funny little story to relay as well. You've just pushed me to start it!
Thank you again..for everything :)
Good one!!
Good question @silentdiscourse...I'm going to defer to my lawyer @glenalbrethsen haha
I think you bring up a really good point about gifs, @silentdiscourse. And what if a gif-maker took a photo from somewhere online, without permission, made a gif and it went viral? Suddenly everyone is using it, and we might not realize that the original photo is unattributed.
I heard that the parents of this toddler were dismayed at first to realize their photo was being used by strangers all over the world, but are ok with it now.
I’m glad you brought that up, because many people don’t know this kind of stuff.
It never occured to me to write a post about this, because after working online for 15 years, a thing like this comes natural to me.
So I really applaud you explained.
I’m resteeming this post to educate my followers :0)
I agree with many of your points, but as you know, it is not the whole story. Can a group require requirements for image sourcing that are not constitutional, or flies in the face of fair use and settled law? I suppose so, but that probably does not make it legal, or right. I have a problem with people representing themselves as experts in the fine points of image sourcing, when in fact there are really very few experts on the subject. I am not saying that I am one either, for if I was my rate of pay would certainly be much higher than it is now. However, the purveyance of bad information (and I am not talking about you) is a poison pill, and it really makes me crazy. It does not make the situation any better, in fact it makes it worse. Wrong is wrong, and it simply ain't right.
As I hope I was pointing out, I found their rules to be a little nitpicky, but I do think they have a right to set standards. It's actually the easiest way out, where attribution is minimal and permission non-existent, so it's hard to find fault with the reasoning. Where my issue with them comes is denying @lynncole1 outright. The conversation should have been, "Hey, our rules are little bit more strict and so would you be willing to source like this?" And then she could have said, Okay," or she could have said, "No, too much trouble," and walked away of her own accord.
As you say, there's more to it but streamlining things within safe parameters as a private entity—I would hope there would be some room for that. :)
I agree, particularly with how the conversation went with @lynncole1. I was also rejected out of hand, for the offense of republishing parts of my own writing, from my own website which I own. I pay dearly for it too, I might add. I did not even know what a cheetah bot was at the time. My worry is that groups like this, though obviously well intentioned, will become too powerful and begin to censor just like Facebook and Youtube is now doing. It would appear (from what I have read of your own writings) that there is a little unethical activity on Steemit. I don't know the answer to that issue, but I know that you certainly don't want to penalize people that are trying to do the right thing. No offense to you. I enjoy your work by the way...Best!
Oh, I would say, based on my own addressing of certain subjects, that there's all kinds of things that could and really should be considered unethical. :) And I've seen the cheetah bot get carried away with what it's determining to be original content, too.
There are people here (because I've read their comments or posts) that would rather others not use even their own content if it's been posted somewhere else. I don't personally subscribe to that because I think you should be able to post anything that's yours. That's the actual definition of original content, not original to Steemit.
So far, everything I've put up has been unpublished elsewhere, but at some point I will be wanting to post some things I previously wrote on Facebook.
If cheetah or other plagiarism bots can't differentiate—especially when you go out of your way to state, "Hey, this is something I wrote on my blog five years go," in the body of the post, then it flat out needs to be reprogrammed to be able to pick up those finer points.
You shouldn't have to prove if it's original content. They should have to prove it's not. And then, the originality needs to stay with the user, not whether or not it was published somewhere else before Steemit.
"That's the actual definition of original content, not original to Steemit."
Thank You, and good points all.
For my part, I am about out of older material. So it's a brave new world now.
I have high hopes for Steemit, and I hope that it stays that way...
Best!
Where were you @glenalbrethsen when I was writing this??? haha
Thank you so much for that well written clarification and explanation. It is much appreciated!!