PDA

View Full Version : Site copying LF forum without attribution



Jac@stafford.net
24-Jan-2013, 13:22
I am not familiar with all the workings of the 'net, so this might be a silly question.

While surfing for information I came across a couple posts from here, one of them mine, copied to this site: http://www.naijafinder.com

Specifically the thread here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?98660-Biogon-75mm-f-4-5-lens-shade-DIY

Copied to: http://www.naijafinder.com/digital-photography/287024-re-biogon-75mm-f-4-5-lens-shade-diy.html

It does not seem ethical or legal. Am I wrong?

jjs

adelorenzo
24-Jan-2013, 14:26
There are a lot of sites like this on the internet. They 'scrape' content from other sites to attract search results and then hopefully get people to buy something, click on something or sign up for something. I would say legality is questionable, definitely unethical but on the whole pretty harmless. Certainly not worth pursuing anything against the site.

Jac@stafford.net
24-Jan-2013, 14:34
Thank you for the information. After browsing the site it is clearly harvesting many and diverse sites, a very desperate kind of behavior. Sad.

It is registered to a Nigerian address and by the traffic it gets the site is steadily failing.

Leigh
24-Jan-2013, 15:30
When you put something on an internet site, it's public, and anybody can use it.

It doesn't matter what caveats you attach to it, nor the COU statements of the site, nor anything else.

That's reality.

Unless you're a high-priced photographer, and can demonstrate significant economic damage
traceable directly to unpermitted use, you'll never even get to court.

Even if you could prove violation of copyright, prosecution under the law is the responsibility
of the copyright holder, not the government, so you have to foot the costs $$$.

- Leigh

adelorenzo
24-Jan-2013, 15:32
The omnipotent Google will get wise to them eventually.... Then they'll just set up a new one.

Jac@stafford.net
24-Jan-2013, 18:59
When you put something on an internet site, it's public, and anybody can use it.

I don't buy that. Not as a matter of law or principle. Your argument that it is too expensive for an individual to pursue notwithstanding. If what you are suggesting is that theft is profitable it is therefore acceptable, then that is just wrong.
.

welly
24-Jan-2013, 20:41
I don't buy that. Not as a matter of law or principle. Your argument that it is too expensive for an individual to pursue notwithstanding. If what you are suggesting is that theft is profitable it is therefore acceptable, then that is just wrong.
.

I think (or I'd like to think) Leigh was saying that when you put something on the internet, it's available for people to do with what they want, whether legally, morally or otherwise (as is often the case) - as opposed to saying things on the internet become public domain, which is clearly not the case.

ROL
24-Jan-2013, 21:02
Regarding unauthorized use, here's a point of perspective for you. Last fall I finally got around to posting a slide show of my wife and me crossing the Sierra on skis in 1978, on my YouTube channel. Within a day or so it was re-posted on a site where users(?) vote on "The Most Boring Internet Videos". It seemed to have escaped the appreciation, as all decorum and propriety evidently have, of the re-poster that this was not original video material, and that such cameras capable of recording such a wilderness excursion did not exist at that time, and had they, my female companion and I could not have carried them. It apparently wasn't enough that we even undertook the hazards of such a journey at the time, but that we should bring back a Hollywood worthy(?) production. Even the use of trendy music didn't seem to help. I understand that the existence of POV hero cams is the standard these days, and though presently working on just such a video, that simply wasn't the case 35 years ago. I included this slideshow on MY video channel for my own uses, not as any representation of skilled video production. Comparing the slideshow, and not the mountaineering achievement of getting my wife safely across a major mountain range in winter, to video, is about the equivalent of comparing a book to a movie. The internet: it's all about the freedom to criticize other's efforts, from the perilous seat of your chair. :p

If anyone cares, here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHOqMJ32HHA) it is.

Henry Ambrose
24-Jan-2013, 21:59
When you put something on an internet site, it's public, and anybody can use it.

It doesn't matter what caveats you attach to it, nor the COU statements of the site, nor anything else.

That's reality.

Unless you're a high-priced photographer, and can demonstrate significant economic damage
traceable directly to unpermitted use, you'll never even get to court.

Even if you could prove violation of copyright, prosecution under the law is the responsibility
of the copyright holder, not the government, so you have to foot the costs $$$.

- Leigh

No, that is absolutely not true.
If you post something on the net you certainly should not be surprised when someone steals your material but that does not make it right and it does not mean you are without legal remedy. Usually an email will get your stolen photos taken down. If you do end up in court and prevail, the statutory damages are substantial for willful infringement of registered copyrights. Don't let people steal from you, fight back.

DrTang
25-Jan-2013, 09:29
I don't buy that. Not as a matter of law or principle. Your argument that it is too expensive for an individual to pursue notwithstanding. If what you are suggesting is that theft is profitable it is therefore acceptable, then that is just wrong.
.


I thought the internet was legally the same as a newspaper..in that once it is published..it is automatically copyrighted

I think one can legally 'link to' a discussion here..but can't copy/paste as if it is theirs or on their site

rdenney
25-Jan-2013, 10:14
I thought the internet was legally the same as a newspaper..in that once it is published..it is automatically copyrighted

Not quite, but close. Copyright law (in the U.S.) covers all tangible expressions (that is--whatever's actually written down), and the protections start from the moment of creation. The burden of proof and the available remedies vary depending on whether it is actually registered, but the principle is that if a person didn't create something themselves (which they presumably can know definitively), then they cannot assume that they can copy it. There are exclusions for fair use, but those don't apply here.

Leigh's point was not about what was a matter of law, but rather about what can actually be enforced. He's saying that enforcing U.S. copyright law on the internet isn't practical, and generally I think he's right.

There have been growing numbers of Internet web sites that scavenge all manner of content--auction listing, for-sale listing, store catalogs, forums, mail list archives, linked-in and business register entries, and so on--and consolidate them by subject onto their own page. Usually, clicking on them takes one back to the source, but often with a click-through ad or a cookie being installed in the process. When I click on such a site in a Google search, I back up immediately and take a different tack. This has been going on for a long time, and the systems for doing so are automated and often out of reach. We need Google and other search providers to do this enforcement--nothing else is going to get the job done, it seems to me. Individual forum owners wouldn't even know where to start, but once started, the job would be all-consuming, never-ending, and unsuccessful.

It is the policy of this forum that individual authors own their own words. If someone has appropriated something you wrote here, you can take action on your own against the site that did the copying, or you can prevent it by requesting that your words be removed from this site (though we can't always remove what has been quoted by others, and we certainly have no control over what has been scavenged). That choice has always been available.

In my own case, I don't put stuff on the Internet that would bother me to be copied, and I do take action when someone puts something on the Internet that makes public my personally identifiable information without my permission. I've had to do that even recently.

And one would think that bona fide sites that post copied information would respond to a cease-and-desist request without having to go through a lawyer. One would be wrong. Parts of an article I wrote, including a picture of me made by my wife (and with the bottom portion that holds the copyright watermark removed), have been part of an ebay buying guide for five years, without attribution and despite my several attempts to have it removed. It's the price we pay for having a public life on the Internet.

Now, copying LFPF posts on other forums without permission--that is a little easier to address if we have contact with the other forum's owners.

Rick "clear as mud" Denney

Jac@stafford.net
25-Jan-2013, 11:25
Rick: "The burden of proof and the available remedies vary depending on whether it is actually registered,"

An additional minor technical point: In the USA in order for a copyright infringement to be heard by the court, it must first be registered. It is not necessary that the item be registered before the infringement. Simply, a court will not accept a case until copyright registration is shown.

rdenney
25-Jan-2013, 12:03
An additional minor technical point: In the USA in order for a copyright infringement to be heard by the court, it must first be registered. It is not necessary that the item be registered before the infringement. Simply, a court will not accept a case until copyright registration is shown.

This varies depending on who one talks to. I've read the Copyright Act of 1979 and I don't find such a provision, but it may have been the result of some newer revision or as a result of jurisprudence. Do you mind if I ask how you know this to be the case?

Rick "trying to sort through myth and lore, which is overwhelming on this topic" Denney

Jac@stafford.net
25-Jan-2013, 12:58
Stanford University (http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-d.html): "You must register your copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office before you are legally permitted to bring a lawsuit to enforce it."

That is the key phrase we used at the university where I worked. There are hundreds of similar quotes that can be cited. Stanford's copyright articles are considered among the most authoritative.

from the law

411 . Registration and civil infringement actions11

(a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a) (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b) <b clarifies ownerships>, no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.

Does this help, Rick?

rdenney
25-Jan-2013, 14:03
Yes, indeed.

Rick "thanks" Denney

BrianShaw
25-Jan-2013, 14:28
... and then there is also the lawyer's perspective... when I last approached a lawyer on this topic the first question was "So what exactly were your damages?" The bottom line of that question seems to have been that this lawyer didn't think that suing over hurt feelings with no financial loss was worth the effort.

Greg Miller
25-Jan-2013, 16:04
US Copyright law: Any image you make is automatically copyrighted. You may file suit in court to enforce the copyright. However damages are limited to "actual damages" and you will pay for your attorney.

However, if you actually properly register your copyright with the Library of Congress, then you are also eligible for very significant statutory damages, in addition to "actual damages", plus the defendant pays for your attorney.

What's an infringement worth? (http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=3627)

Greg Miller
25-Jan-2013, 16:18
Just to be clear about this, you do need to register the copyright to file the lawsuit. But the registration of copyright can happen at any time, even after the infringement occurs - you own the copyright upon making the image and you may register any time of your life. The damages that you receive are dependent on the timing of the registration. If the registration happens before the infringement, or within 3 months of first publication of the image, the statutory damages will be assesed and attorney fees will be paid by the defendant. This is significant because typically "actual damages" will not be sufficient to warrant the lawsuit. But the statutory damages will be enough to warrant the lawsuit.

QT Luong
25-Jan-2013, 17:04
Unless you're a high-priced photographer, and can demonstrate significant economic damage
traceable directly to unpermitted use, you'll never even get to court.

Even if you could prove violation of copyright, prosecution under the law is the responsibility
of the copyright holder, not the government, so you have to foot the costs $$$.

- Leigh

I know we are talking about forum posts here, but please note that in the case of photographs in the US, it is not necessary to be a high-priced photographer (I am not), to demonstrate any economic damage (there are statutory punitive damages for copyright infringement), nor to foot the costs (attorneys take cases on contingency, and losing defendants are charged with legal costs). As mentioned already, it is necessary to register the works.

Mike Anderson
26-Jan-2013, 16:09
This is interesting, someone is copying big chunks of this forum. This whole section here:

http://www.naijafinder.com/camera-accessories/

looks like it's copied from this forum. No doubt other whole sections are copied from other forums. Somebody has pieced together a big bogus forum. A faux-rum.

It looks like this naijafinder.com is trying an easier technique, simply scrape together (copy) content form existing places and pile it all together. It's not coherent like a living forum is, but there's tons of content! There could be the copied contents of thousands of forums piled up under the naijafinder faux-rum.

Just try going into one of the hundreds of subforums there, select a random paragraph and do a search on that paragraph. You'll see it was copied from somewhere else. I've never seen anything like that faux-rum.

In case you're worried that they're going to make a lot off money of stolen content, it looks like google is aware of their scheme and does not list them in searches - it looks like they're on google's blacklist. I wonder if they can do any sort of monetization without googles help.

I also wonder how common these faux-rums (or any big, copied data aggregate piles) are.

Greg Davis
30-Jan-2013, 10:39
What seems even stranger is that the names of participants are changed. Since it appears to be a V-Bullitem type site, did they create dozens of fake people and then paste the text? It all seems to be in an effort to get people to click on the ads, but I can't imagine how that is a cheap or easy way to make money.