Page with (probably) stolen pictures

[Isilme]

Hi! I just wanted to tell you about this page that I found. Some of the photos seems awfully familiar and LHC-style. I doubt the creator has asked permission to use the pics.

http://slodive.com/inspiration/cute-hairstyles-for-long-hair/

[Sarahlabyrinth]

Yes I see what you mean - I wonder if any of us are on there?

[Nae]

I wouldn't be suprised. Some of those heads looked familar, especially those with the flexis.

[Tota]

I agree, some of these photos are definitely LHC-style. Especially the ones with flexis.

[MeowScat]

Wow! There are some serious longhair and updo styles on that page that are really inspiring. There was one braid that was longer than the pic showed that gave me hope in my frustrating, years long, journey.

I love pics, no matter the length, because it gives me a glimmer of hope that I might be able to finally attain that goal one day. Being a Fine haired straighty, it seems like long hair for me is impossible.

Between the breakage, thinness and limp nothingness, I can't help but remember what so many people have told me. "Your hair NEEDS to be short and layered to look presentable". Been there, done that with horrible looking hair.

Thank you for posting these pics of pretty hair!

[Natalia]

oh my gosh absolutly some lhc pics. I very rarely browse hair pics at all and nearly never outside lhc and ive seen 4 of those before.

[LoveSnap]

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the photos were stolen from here. I belong to several african American hair communities and mom and pop hair product companies steal their photos often and claim the product made their hair grow. Did anyone look at the "names" of the hairstyles on that page? A mess.

[DancingQueen]

I wouldn't be surprised if someone from LHC were there. But when you put pictures on the internet, I don't think it is illegal for other people to 'steal' them or use them without your permission.

[Bagginslover]

I wouldn't be surprised if someone from LHC were there. But when you put pictures on the internet, I don't think it is illegal for other people to 'steal' them or use them without your permission.
It most certainly is! Its image theft, and you can be prosecuted for it if the copyright holder chooses to persue you for it.

[Ticky]

How awful it is when someone steals your pictures :mad:

I see that, when you right-click and copy link address (on those pictures with flexi 8s), it takes you to some girl's flickr. Maybe someone knows who it is :shrug:

ETA: Oh, it also takes you there when you click on the style's name below the photo. D'oh, self.

[Angel Barchild]

It most certainly is! Its image theft, and you can be prosecuted for it if the copyright holder chooses to persue you for it.

I don't know where you live, but in the us we have what is called "fair use" http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html .

"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." That's not everything covered just a small list.

So no it's not "image theft" for them to use pics posted on the net in their news article about long hair.

On a side note, there is no way to put your pics on the net with out them getting out.

[Amorice]

I have a feeling ALL of their photos are stolen. Probably trying to get Google traffic, either for ad revenue or trying to sell something (though what that is I have no idea, site says they're a graphic design firm?)

[vanillabones]

Taken from other sites or not there are some really pretty pics in there :D

[frogs]

Where i live, using a photo without the permission of the owner is illegal. You can get 2 years in jail for it! But its hard to actually get somebody prosecuted. Its still a crime, though.

[Dovetail]

Sine when does Ashley Tisdale have "nappy" hair?

Also an issue that came to mind is although she did link back to the images (I guess?) it's still using them without asking. I've noticed more with tumblr and things like that it's very easy to just "reblog" but I think taking an image of someone off their say..flickr (which doesn't let you right click anyways!) and posting it without asking is still wrong. What if that was a personal picture and the girl didn't WANT it used?

[MinderMutsig]

There's one picture on there with a girl with curly hair taking a picture in the mirror so the camera is visible, that I'm pretty sure is someones signature picture on here.

[woolyleprechaun]

I recognise a few, and I dont frequent many other sites than this one :)
None of them are me, and I couldnt identify anyone. We should just keep bumping this thread in the hope that someone can! Well spotted OP....:D

[LoveSnap]

I did a google images search and found that most of the photos that appear to be stolen are from a woman on Flickr named Alma. Here is her link: http://www.flickr.com/people/almaeyes/

I'm not sure if she is a member here or not.

[neko_kawaii]

Only the original copyright holders can say whether or not the author asked for permission to repost the pictures.

[truepeacenik]

Well, not necessarily true.
I'm on a board that claims rights to all text and original graphics posted on it. It is part of the agreement upon sign up.
Who reads those until after that fact?
I couldn't tell you if TLHC/Beauty Bottle owns our words here.

[sarelis]

Well, not necessarily true.
I'm on a board that claims rights to all text and original graphics posted on it. It is part of the agreement upon sign up.
Who reads those until after that fact?
I couldn't tell you if TLHC/Beauty Bottle owns our words here.

Yes, I have seen this on forums too.

[neko_kawaii]

The LHC-esq pictures that I linked through for were all on flickr and only one had something other than copyright all rights reserved. Pictures on flickr are supposed to be the property of the person who uploaded them. I know what you mean about some forums claiming ownership of what is posted to them.

[maborosi]

Some of these look extremely familiar. The girl with the red hair and the flexi-8 ponytail, I'm almost sure I've seen her around here.

Beautiful pictures, I just wish they credited them!

~maborosi~

[Melisande]

If you want to know where a pic comes from, save it on you hard disk and then search for it via Tin Eye.

http://www.tineye.com/

[Melisande]

If you want to know where a pic comes from, save it on you hard disk and then search for it via Tin Eye.

http://www.tineye.com/

[jacqueline101]

Wow its a shamed you can't have your pictures on line without someone invading them.

[Alvrodul]

There's a reason why I've started to put a watermark on my pictures. :shrug: Once the pictures are out there on the web, there's really nothing that can prevent someone from grabbing the pics. The watermark will hopefully make it less likely.

[hufflepug]

It's bad enough to take pictures from adults without asking, but the inclusion of little girls on that website is really bothering me.

Also, whoever wrote it doesn't know wtf nappy means...

[katfemme89]

Yeah I swear some of those are stolen from here. As someone else mentioned, the self-taken pic of curly hair really resembles someone's signature on here, though I can't remember whose it is...

I think it's almost flattering that they used some LHC pictures whether it's legal or not but it's just dang common courtesy to ASK and to CREDIT the person. Geesh.

[Denebi]

Really, there is someone we all know.... have you clicked on the linked articles? The blonde-hairstyles one is especially interesting: http://slodive.com/inspiration/long-blonde-hairstyles/

Scroll down a bit...
Yup, that's Torrin Paige!

I PMed her, I'm not sure if she is happy with that or not, but I think she should know about it.

[katfemme89]

Really, there is someone we all know.... have you clicked on the linked articles? The blonde-hairstyles one is especially interesting: http://slodive.com/inspiration/long-blonde-hairstyles/

Scroll down a bit...
Yup, that's Torrin Paige!

I PMed her, I'm not sure if she is happy with that or not, but I think she should know about it.

12, 14, 17 all look like they're hers. Man, pictures thieves. *sigh* :rolleyes:

[katfemme89]

Is it really that hard to just ask permission for someone's pic? I don't get people who don't do this.

[dwell_in_safety]

It's really not so hard to ask permission to use pictures; the majority of people are happy to give permission when it is asked for. Not asking is not only creepy but lazy.

[spirals]

The flexi-8 ponytail looks very familiar, and the side braid with the closet in background has to be one of ours. I left a comment that will probably be erased.

[lapushka]

It's really not so hard to ask permission to use pictures; the majority of people are happy to give permission when it is asked for. Not asking is not only creepy but lazy.

This. ^^

And it is indeed a picture of Torrin Paige! Creepy, and maddening that they have just taken pictures away from people like that.:mad:

[thatcrazychick]

If you Google some of the image names - I did just "jbun", "anne lysa", "outcast hair" and "side english braid" - the images in the article are the first that pop up. The jbun and english braid go to one flickr account, and the anne lysa pic goes to another flickr account. Outcast hair goes to 500px.com, looks like it was an entry for a photography competition ("Outcast Hair" is the name of the photo).

Looks like they just scavenged Google til they found pics they liked.


EDIT: Under the U.S. copyright law (assuming that slodive.com is under U.S. jurisdiction) none of these images are "stolen." Read the "fair use" clause of the copyright law:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
Chapter 1, Section 107
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

[battles]

Someone here (http://slodive.com/inspiration/french-braid-hairstyles/) has a moon fork. :(

ETA: Ah, another Torrinpaige picture. Geez, this person is creepy, stealing all these pictures.

[pepperminttea]

I did a google images search and found that most of the photos that appear to be stolen are from a woman on Flickr named Alma. Here is her link: http://www.flickr.com/people/almaeyes/

I'm not sure if she is a member here or not.

She is, her username is .:Alma:.

I've PMed her.

[katfemme89]

Pam Oberoi appears to be the name of the author of all of these stolen pic articles. I wonder if there is any way to contact that person.

Here is her article archive: http://slodive.com/author/pam-oberoi/
Pages upon pages of hairstyle photo articles, all with potentially stolen pictures. I think that one article posted by OP is just the tip of the iceberg.

[cmg]

Looks like they just scavenged Google til they found pics they liked.
Incredible.


EDIT: Under the U.S. copyright law (assuming that slodive.com is under U.S. jurisdiction) none of these images are "stolen." Read the "fair use" clause of the copyright law:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
Chapter 1, Section 107
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
Bad excuse. The pictures are not less illegal if they are from server XYZ and showed on a server ABC in another country. This is one of the reasons some forums don't allow deep linking. To avoid problems with legal issues like this. International laws are not updated to mirror internet behaviour everywhere - but that will change.

/ CMG

[Shepherdess]

Wow, I'm not posting a picture of myself again online unless I know it is completely private. This is terrible! :(

[katfemme89]

...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
Chapter 1, Section 107
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

But it can be argued that the blog with the pictures didn't use the pictures in any of those contexts, except maybe comment.

I don't know though I don't know much about copyright law, but what it comes down to, to me, is just common courtesy. What's so hard about at least crediting the original owner of the pic? That's just my idea.

[battles]

Wow, I'm not posting a picture of myself again online unless I know it is completely private. This is terrible! :(

Nothing you post online is private. Just saying. :shrug:

[Shepherdess]

Nothing you post online is private. Just saying. :shrug:

Yeah, I was thinking that my blogs would be more private, but I guess not. I think I will avoid posting any pictures from now on just to be safe. I do not want anyone taking them.

[thatcrazychick]

Bad excuse. The pictures are not less illegal if they are from server XYZ and showed on a server ABC in another country. This is one of the reasons some forums don't allow deep linking. To avoid problems with legal issues like this. International laws are not updated to mirror internet behaviour everywhere - but that will change.
/ CMG

Not my point, I was simply stating U.S. copyright law because, being in the U.S., that's all I had access to. Other countries' laws would, of course, be applied appropriately.

This had been an ongoing debate since the internet became accessible to the public. My dad is a photographer, so I've gotten to listen to a good bit of it. Some examples: if you wanted to write an article for school about some dead president, you can't take a picture of that guy. Using a picture of him off the internet, for your non-commercial purpose, is perfectly legal.
Another: if you were writing a product review on your blog, you could take the stock photo from the manufacturer's website and use it in your blog.
However: if you are a photographer and used someone else's photo as the background, or a main part of your work so that it is recognizably that other person's photo in there, then I believe you have to get permission before you can publish and sell your own photo.


What they wrote is an "educational article" of sorts. I'm not saying its not awkward for those who actually created the photos, or that its okay for them to use them unscrupulously - simply that its legal under "fair use." This is also why you should keep your flickr and photobucket accounts private.



I don't know though I don't know much about copyright law, but what it comes down to, to me, is just common courtesy. What's so hard about at least crediting the original owner of the pic? That's just my idea.

I agree wholeheartedly. TBH, its not hard - it just takes more time then the zero minutes they want to bother with it. Yeah, I know its :bs:

[MinderMutsig]

Someone here (http://slodive.com/inspiration/french-braid-hairstyles/) has a moon fork. :(

ETA: Ah, another Torrinpaige picture. Geez, this person is creepy, stealing all these pictures. The one with the red scrunchie is from someone on here too. I remember that picture but don't remember who it is.

And further down there's a blond girl with three waterfall braids (?) that meet in the middle that I know I've seen on a blog off LHC. A blog by a mom doing video tutorials on hairstyles for little girls.

I guess by now we can say that this blog is filled with stolen stuff. I highly doubt there's any original content on there.

[LoveSnap]

She is, her username is .:Alma:.

I've PMed her.

Awesome, I think these people should be contacted.

[cmg]

Is it possible to se the photos here on LHC for people who are not registered members? I don´t mean the flickr pics and such, they would be public for all to see, but all the others in our albums for example? What would bug me the most is if the person who misused the photos would be a registered member. Perhaps registered only for the sole purpose of finding photos to illustrate his/hers writings :cool:

/ CMG

[neko_kawaii]

Is it possible to se the photos here on LHC for people who are not registered members? I don´t mean the flickr pics and such, they would be public for all to see, but all the others in our albums for example? What would bug me the most is if the person who misused the photos would be a registered member. Perhaps registered only for the sole purpose of finding photos to illustrate his/hers writings :cool:

/ CMG

The albums here on LHC (when they are working) can be set to either public (in which case anyone who can see the thread/blog can see the picture) or private (in which case it can only be seen by LHC members you have added as a contact and moderators). Photos from other hosting sites can be seen by anyone who can see the thread in which is was posted.

The author of the article in question has likely never heard of LHC. They linked to photos from three major photo hosting sites.

As for attribution, the author probably thought that by not rehosting the images and linking to their original sources they were not violating copyright. Whether this does qualify as "fair use" would have to be decided by a judge if a picture was used without permission and the copyright holder sued.

Would you feel that the images had been stolen if the article was a list of links? Would you still think it was creepy?

If the author had created each of those styles on herself and then shared the photos I would find it more interesting. Anyone can look through image hosts for pretty pictures and then put them in a list; she didn't even create her own descriptions for the pictures!

[katfemme89]

If the author had created each of those styles on herself and then shared the photos I would find it more interesting. Anyone can look through image hosts for pretty pictures and then put them in a list; she didn't even create her own descriptions for the pictures!

I second this. ^^ Not to mention she created completely lousy "names" for each hairstyle. Atrocious. (Did anyone see the one titled "Hair of the dog" or something like that???? beautiful hairstyle, totally stupid name...)

[neko_kawaii]

The concepts that have been just out of reach: linkjacking (http://aboutsocialmedia.com/articles/please-dont-linkjack/) and bandwidth theft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_linking).

[Sarahlabyrinth]

I just assume that whatever I put online is by definition not private.

[katfemme89]

The concepts that have been just out of reach: linkjacking (http://aboutsocialmedia.com/articles/please-dont-linkjack/) and bandwidth theft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_linking).

That is an excellent point.

[spirals]

I just assume that whatever I put online is by definition not private.
I do too, and if people find my trivial photos interesting, that's fine. But there are people who would like to be asked permission, so I feel out of common courtesy people should ask, as a general rule. If they don't ask me personally, I won't make a big deal out of it. That's because I don't post anything I'd feel ashamed of or that people wouldn't be able to see by looking at me in public. So, for me, meh.

[FrozenBritannia]

Subscribing while I go and look through to see if I recognize any pics.

In the bun article there is one that I am almost positive I recognise! The brunette with the Glasses, grey sweater, and gold ficcare..

I wish I could remember who it belongs to..
http://slodive.com/inspiration/bun-hairstyles/

[gnome82]

If someone else was making money from my photos and not acknowledging me, I'd be annoyed to say the least.

[Sarahlabyrinth]

Subscribing while I go and look through to see if I recognize any pics.

In the bun article there is one that I am almost positive I recognise! The brunette with the Glasses, grey sweater, and gold ficcare..

I wish I could remember who it belongs to..
http://slodive.com/inspiration/bun-hairstyles/

Has anyone noticed what is wrong with the chin of the girl in the 19th photo down???

[FrozenBritannia]

Has anyone noticed what is wrong with the chin of the girl in the 19th photo down???

I'm thinking (hoping) its makeup. It looks like a dressing room behind her, and there is similar purplish stuff on her neck. Clicking through to the flickr it says it was posted by a makeup artist.

[MinderMutsig]

I'm thinking (hoping) its makeup. It looks like a dressing room behind her, and there is similar purplish stuff on her neck. Clicking through to the flickr it says it was posted by a makeup artist. I think I found the full frontal (http://www.flickr.com/photos/alicemoore/3077712404/in/photostream/) of that girl and her make-up. Pretty freaky but very well done!

[Asprettyasme]

#error

#An error occurred.

[katfemme89]

Has anyone ask this question yet, what can you do if someone steals your pictures? I would hate to find my pictures somewhere else. I almost want to remove them from off this site. Why doesn't LHC protect us from people like that?

I think it's a lot easier said than done. It's really hard to protect pictures. Even with right-click disabled and linking disabled, people can still just take a screen capture of the photo and save it as a whole new photo. There is no protection from image piracy on the internet. But people should be decent enough not to do it.


I think I found the full frontal (http://www.flickr.com/photos/alicemoore/3077712404/in/photostream/) of that girl and her make-up. Pretty freaky but very well done!

Looks like an extra from The Walking Dead. Man, that reminds me, I can't wait for season 3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Arriens]

Bad excuse. The pictures are not less illegal if they are from server XYZ and showed on a server ABC in another country. This is one of the reasons some forums don't allow deep linking. To avoid problems with legal issues like this. International laws are not updated to mirror internet behaviour everywhere - but that will change.

Which is in my opinion a good thing.
I prefer NOT to live under USA laws because they are NOT the best around. Especially when it comes to personal freedom.

Besides, I don't see ads on that page so I wonder how they want to profit from stealing pictures.


Wow, I'm not posting a picture of myself again online unless I know it is completely private. This is terrible! :(
To quote the owner of facebook.
"Privacy is dead"

There are enough examples of movies/pictures on the net that the owners don't want them but got stolen from their mobiles.
My advice, blur your face before putting them online.
I do it with all of my pictures.


Has anyone ask this question yet, what can you do if someone steals your pictures? I would hate to find my pictures somewhere else. I almost want to remove them from off this site. Why doesn't LHC protect us from people like that?
Not much, you can email the owner and ask politely to remove them.
After this, it really depends on which nation the server is.

[neko_kawaii]

Has anyone ask this question yet, what can you do if someone steals your pictures? I would hate to find my pictures somewhere else. I almost want to remove them from off this site. Why doesn't LHC protect us from people like that?

LHC can't protect anyone from picture theft. It is just too easy to do. Drag and drop, boom its on someone's desktop. Copy and paste and the link is somewhere you have no control over. Illegal, yes, in many contexts it is. There is a gray area called "fair use" that is generally decided on a case by case basis by a judge if it gets that far but I'd guess most cases settle out of court. So, you are looking at who has more money and scarier lawyers. Some people are honest and will remove your image if you send them a message pointing out that they do not have your permission.

If you don't want an image you took or made or an image of yourself to circulate out of your control the simplest thing you can do is not let it get on the internet. Remember, pictures don't stay on your friends phones either.

However, if you can get past "everything I post to the internet is public" there are a few precautions you can take. I am familiar with flickr and photobucket. Both of those image hosts allow you to change the publicity and searchability of what you post to them. You can make images PRIVATE. This means that someone looking at your profile on the image host site will not be able to see photos that you have set as private unless you have added the viewer to a contact list on the image host site. You can still share those images where you choose, but no one can follow your image post back to your album or photostream and see what you have set to PRIVATE.

With flickr you can make it so images are public but not searchable. This way you can provide the link to your friends who can then see your public photostream without creating flickr accounts but they will not show up on a search of flickr. But, your post in a public forum can be followed back to your account and your public pictures will be visible.

All of these settings can be changed for pictures that are already hosted, but it is easiest to learn to click the boxes when you are uploading things.

One thing LHC has done to try to preserve the privacy of its members is through limiting access to blogs to members who have made 25 posts. If you want to post pictures to LHC but don't want "the public" to be able to see them, or for them to show up on a Google image search, then post the images to your blog and not to the public forums. You could then link in the forums to your blog.

Some members use watermarks which make their images unusable for reuse but leave their fancy updos barely visible. Lower quality photos also deter reuse.

[LadyLongLocks]

I learned a hard lesson when my first hair photos from 2005 ended up on ebay in a hair extension ad. I watermarked my photos after that. It doesn't stop the theft, but it helps.
Here is a good program to add a watermark.
http://www.alamoon.com/watermark-editor.html

[Angel Barchild]

One of the most basic of internet safety rules is that once you post a pic on the internet it's in the wild and there is no way to keep it completely private. You can turn up your privacy settings on Facebook (don't let friends of friends have access) and make your photo sharing accounts (Photobucket and the like) more secure, that will bring down the chances of it getting out, but these things reduce risk, they do not eliminate it. If you post your pic on a public forum, like this one, you are guaranteed thousands of people have seen or grabbed copies of your pic and you can never get them back. It may not be moral, or ethical, but it is a fact of the internet.

Now unless you post a pic of something you don't want people to see, there really isn't much risk. However people have been know to get themselves fired from jobs, lost boyfriend/girlfriend, and made themselves social outcast, by putting pics of themselves doing stupid stuff on the internet.

Nothing you post on the internet, be it information or pics is secure period. Especially if you post it on a public forum. It is the same as putting it on a billboard on the highway.

[kallarina]

Oh my gosh! Did you guys see the ones of the little girls? I would be MAJORLY ticked if those were my kids or my nieces or anyone I knew. That scares me more than the thought of having my own pictures swiped.

[minxe]

Why is everyone so frightened about their pictures being on websites other than LHC?

[HylianGirl]

Wow, that is a very badly made article, they don't even know the names of the styles, and don't understand about hair... and often show hair that is loose and just describe it... and yes, some of those pics are lhc style...

[Alvrodul]

Perhaps not so much frightened as angry that their pictures may be used without permission, and perhaps for things that are in conflict with their personal views, minxe.
Take me - I have a number of pictures on various threads here. I would be seriously ticked off if someone were to take my hair pictures and used them to sell flatirons or chemical colors - I don't use heat on my hair and am a hennahead.
The example of possible uses for my hair pictures is quite innocent actually.
So imagine how you yourself would feel if you somehow found your picture associated with a political or religious statement that you violently disagree with, just because some idiot snatched your picture off the Internet and used it for his purposes.

[Shermie Girl]

Has anyone ask this question yet, what can you do if someone steals your pictures? I would hate to find my pictures somewhere else. I almost want to remove them from off this site. Why doesn't LHC protect us from people like that?

LHC can't protect anyone from photo theft. Posting photos on the more "protected" boards can help, as can posting them n private albums and blog but once something hits the web, it is out of your hands. If you want to keep your photos truly private, keep them off the Internet. :)

If someone "borrows" a photograph that belongs to you without your permission you can contact the webmaster or blog owner and ask them to take it down. Most people will comply. Some won't. If they don't, there isn't a whole lot you can do. You can contact Google or Wordpress and so forth and press the issue.

If your photos/content are stolen in order to make money off of them, that is a different subject and you have options. I have had photographs stolen and posted on E-Bay and other sites to sell nail polish and when I contacted the owner of the listing or site, the photos were taken down at once. I have also had entire pages of my nail blog stolen (photographs and text content) and posted on other blogs with the blog owner taking credit in order to make money on ad clicks. In those cases, I merely filed a complaint with Google and the posts were taken down.

The thing is, if you ask my permission, respect my watermark and give me credit, nine times out of ten, I will give you permission to use my photographs. There is no reason to steal my images. :shrug:

[torrilin]

EDIT: Under the U.S. copyright law (assuming that slodive.com is under U.S. jurisdiction) none of these images are "stolen." Read the "fair use" clause of the copyright law:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
Chapter 1, Section 107
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

Wrong.

Fair use means you may use a portion of the work for those purposes. If you're quoting from a book length work, you might be ok using as much as 20 pages for a class. Maybe. 20 pages out of 300 is not a large percentage. For most other sorts of creative works, same rough guide applies. The vast majority of the derivative work needs to be your own creation. For academic stuff, at the college or university level, if you tried to cite even 20 pages for a course, the department would make you get authorization from the rights holder to prevent possible legal issues.

In the case of a photograph, copying the whole photograph means you copied 100%, and thus you're no longer in the realm of fair use.

You can legitimately copy a photograph and use it as part of your inspiration for a derived piece of art, but in general, if the inspiration photograph is at all obvious, there will be problems defending a fair use claim.

The one area of use where you can legitimately get away with leaning harder on the source material is comedic uses like parody. Even so, it's pretty routine to get permission from the creator for your parody rather than plan on having to fight out a court case.

In short, if there's even the slightest doubt about whether you're engaged in fair use, link directly to the original OR ask the creator's permission. From the point of view of international copyright law, it's always safer to get permission than ask forgiveness.

[terylenerose]

The one labeled "Long Hairstyle" especially bothered me, because it was obviously taken by somebody in a mirror, probably for LHC, and wasn't really meant to be distributed like that. I also think these people need to review the definition of "hairstyle"; I don't think it includes the color.

[cmg]

Besides the legal issues, it is not uncommon that porn sites and contact sites copy nice headshots and photoshop onto the bodies of models. I have worked as an interpreter for the police in such cases, also involving photos of minors. It's horrible. Nothing is sacred anymore. But there is nothing you can do about it until you or someone else detects it. I have contacted the server where the site in question was located on a few occasions. They can shut the page down if you have proof.

/ CMG

[Ebrox]

wow I just found a picture of a girl I follow on youtube.. her name is Beckie0 http://www.youtube.com/user/beckie0?feature=results_main
the picture was stolen form her flickr account, I sent her a message.

[thatcrazychick]

Fair use means you may use a portion of the work for those purposes. If you're quoting from a book length work, you might be ok using as much as 20 pages for a class. Maybe. 20 pages out of 300 is not a large percentage. For most other sorts of creative works, same rough guide applies. The vast majority of the derivative work needs to be your own creation. For academic stuff, at the college or university level, if you tried to cite even 20 pages for a course, the department would make you get authorization from the rights holder to prevent possible legal issues.

No arguments here. I’ve never had to cite 20 pages for one paper, but documentation of EVERYTHING you use in a school paper is required.



In the case of a photograph, copying the whole photograph means you copied 100%, and thus you're no longer in the realm of fair use. You can legitimately copy a photograph and use it as part of your inspiration for a derived piece of art, but in general, if the inspiration photograph is at all obvious, there will be problems defending a fair use claim.

I'm not talking about commercial purposes. If someone uses your photo for financial gain, then yes obviously its copyright infringement. BUT this article is not a sales promotion, and is not sold itself. Besides that, the article links the photos to their original sources. Therefore, the original creators are acknowledged, and copyright is not violated.

My father has taken photos of many historic buildings and at many cultural events in this state. Plus he’s done plenty of anniversaries, weddings, senior portraits, etc. He's watermarked all of them. Some, when he's shooting for a job, are the property of his work. The rest are his intellectual property. But still, many of what hes used in his website, or sold to others to use on theirs (without going into the many ways in which you can sell a photo) end up getting used somewhere else in the internet. And yes, hes dealt with fair use before. For instance, a magazine once used his photos of a deceased individual in an article. And they cropped it, so the image lost his © text. But it was free online, it was some cultural/historical magazine, and the article was a bio of this significant person, so it was free use. Yes he consulted a lawyer. Yes he contacted the magazine – they later changed the online article to include his name as the photo source, BUT it was really out of courtesy, not requirement



In short, if there's even the slightest doubt about whether you're engaged in fair use, link directly to the original OR ask the creator's permission. From the point of view of international copyright law, it's always safer to get permission than ask forgiveness.

Again, agreed. Also again, the site links all of the images to their source location.



The lesson here is, if you would be upset if someone else uses your photo on the internet, you probably shouldn’t put it on the internet to begin with.

One way to keep your photos a little more private is to password-protect your flickr accounts. BUT photos can still show up on Google. Since Google runs off of key words, don’t tag photos, don’t comment on them or write a title, and make the image file name something obscure. For example, instead of GlassHairsticksInBun.jpg, try bun_GH_9-7-2012.jpg, which has fewer key words in it. Mark your flickr stream as copyrighted AND make special note of “no creative commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license)”. Finally, watermark EVERYTHING, put the copyright © and "all rights reserved" in your image to discourage casual internet-goers.



But for whoever really wants that site to remove their image, go here (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/photography_copyright.html) and scroll down 1/2 way to read about The Digital Millennium Copyright Act and about takedown notices. (or just change the name of your image; if they directly linked it instead of hosting a second copy themselves, they'll no longer have an image once you break the link.)

[cmg]

And they cropped it, so the image lost his © text. But it was free online, it was some cultural/historical magazine, and the article was a bio of this significant person, so it was free use. Yes he consulted a lawyer. Yes he contacted the magazine – they later changed the online article to include his name as the photo source, BUT it was really out of courtesy, not requirement

This is unthinkable here. And unacceptable.


The lesson here is, if you would be upset if someone else uses your photo on the internet, you probably shouldn’t put it on the internet to begin with.

So the excuse is "You tempted me, therefore I stole from you"

Also not acceptable. But as I said before, the laws are only now catching up on the world of internet and peoples behaviour thereon. It will take time to educate people and make international laws that are workable.

/ CMG

[salamander]

I'm not talking about commercial purposes. If someone uses your photo for financial gain, then yes obviously its copyright infringement. BUT this article is not a sales promotion, and is not sold itself.

It's being used in an article on their website, though, which will draw readers and get them money for ad views even if the article itself can be viewed for free. They are getting some financial gain from those photos, whether they're outright selling them or not.

[Charybdis]

I guarantee this SloDive website is a content farm (http://searchengineland.com/google-forecloses-on-content-farms-with-farmer-algorithm-update-66071). I hate these SEO parasites; I consider them right down there with the multi-level marketing scammers. Unfortunately, you're more likely to encounter SEO parasites in the workplace (and I have). Ugh.

But, yeah, these stolen pics are being used indirectly to make money. It would be expensive and time-consuming to prove it in a court of law, because they're not making their bucks from people clicking ad links, but the entire purpose of that website is commercial. There's a reason why they pay people (http://slodive.com/slodive-invites-guest-authors/) who slap these crappy pages together.

Very, very shady.

[Angel Barchild]

This is unthinkable here. And unacceptable.



So the excuse is "You tempted me, therefore I stole from you"

Also not acceptable. But as I said before, the laws are only now catching up on the world of internet and peoples behaviour thereon. It will take time to educate people and make international laws that are workable.

/ CMG

International law is a voluntary set of rules nations use when dealing with each other. It is not concerned with private citizens. That falls under state state sovereignty.
Copy right laws vary so widely from nation to nation it is completely impossible to reconcile them all into anything coherent. Not to mention no nation is going to cede jurisdiction over all it's private citizens.

In the U.S. the copy right laws are broken, and not equipped to deal with modern means of communication. As the mpaa/riaa proved in the U.S. the sue everyone philosophy is a huge fail. If someone is making money off your work it's different, that is wrong. However I feel if you post something one the internet on a public forum then you have no expectation of privacy. It's like putting your pic up on a bill board on the highway. Anyone can see it and anyone can take a pic of it.

[MeowScat]

Oh dear...I thought this was about pictures of longhair styles and lengths.

Not about STOLEN pictures of LHC Members! I'm so sorry for missing that point when I answered on the first page of this thread. I clicked on the link and thought it was another inspirational longhair thread.

I feel like an idiot and I apologize! :(

[cmg]

International law is a voluntary set of rules nations use when dealing with each other. It is not concerned with private citizens. That falls under state state sovereignty.
Wrong. Private persons have copyright issues just like every one else. In addition to that, in fact private people can publish books nowadays, not as firms but as private people. These books can also be violated (even though they might be without commercial interest).


Copy right laws vary so widely from nation to nation it is completely impossible to reconcile them all into anything coherent.
This is changing as we speak. In Europe we already have laws that cover all EU-countries for example. There is no way you can escape even if you are in another country or your server is. Or if you earn money on your theft or not. That is not the issue.

/ CMG

[torrilin]

No arguments here. I’ve never had to cite 20 pages for one paper, but documentation of EVERYTHING you use in a school paper is required.

I wasn't talking a school paper. I was talking teaching a course. That's covered by fair use, but even so... the university is going to require you to take appropriate measures. You as a professor might not be worth suing, but the university surely is.


I'm not talking about commercial purposes. If someone uses your photo for financial gain, then yes obviously its copyright infringement.

Wrong again. Copyright law has nothing to do with financial gain, and everything to do with permission. If you have permission, you're fine. If you don't have permission, you'd better be scrupulous about making sure you're covered under fair use.


BUT this article is not a sales promotion, and is not sold itself. Besides that, the article links the photos to their original sources. Therefore, the original creators are acknowledged, and copyright is not violated.

Yeah, it is. If you do not get permission in writing, you can be sued.


And yes, hes dealt with fair use before. For instance, a magazine once used his photos of a deceased individual in an article. And they cropped it, so the image lost his © text. But it was free online, it was some cultural/historical magazine, and the article was a bio of this significant person, so it was free use. Yes he consulted a lawyer. Yes he contacted the magazine – they later changed the online article to include his name as the photo source, BUT it was really out of courtesy, not requirement

Uh, no. He could have sued. Step one in the suit is to issue a DCMA takedown request to their ISP, which takes no lawyer at all.

Now, he may have decided to settle for no money and at least a credit. That is legal. He's the copyright holder, and he's the only one who can decide what he wants. The law doesn't require that everyone must pay for permission, merely that you have to ask if you want to use someone else's work. And a lot of people really are happy to just be asked.

And as other posters have noted, this sort of content farming does make money (usually via advertising of one sort or another). Part of the way ISPs find out about this sort of thing is via legal actions like a DCMA takedown letter. Depending on your legal agreement with your ISP, it can get your account yanked. :D Notifying the advertisers that they're being linked to stolen content tends to get the advertising account yanked too.

(note: the rule about ask permission first applies everywhere in the WORLD. if you ask, and the owner gives permission... no trouble at all. all of the complicated happens if you use someone else's work without permission.)

[Kaelee]

Subscribing while I go and look through to see if I recognize any pics.

In the bun article there is one that I am almost positive I recognise! The brunette with the Glasses, grey sweater, and gold ficcare..

I wish I could remember who it belongs to..
http://slodive.com/inspiration/bun-hairstyles/


OMGosh I recognize that one picture!!! It's definitely from LHC!!! And they called it a c*m bun??? What?! :mad:

[Charybdis]

OMGosh I recognize that one picture!!! It's definitely from LHC!!! And they called it a c*m bun??? What?! :mad:

While the "article" and site are stupid and shady, I have to reluctantly defend them on this point. (Sigh... it genuinely pains me to give these people the benefit of the doubt; but the information is worth sharing, as you may encounter this usage in other contexts.) I believe they're using the word you refer to in its Latin meaning, which is simply the preposition with (http://www.latinwordlist.com/latin-word-for/latin-word-for-with-16556385.htm).

[Kaelee]

While the "article" and site are stupid and shady, I have to reluctantly defend them on this point. (Sigh... it genuinely pains me to give these people the benefit of the doubt; but the information is worth sharing, as you may encounter this usage in other contexts.) I believe they're using the word you refer to in its Latin meaning, which is simply the preposition with (http://www.latinwordlist.com/latin-word-for/latin-word-for-with-16556385.htm).

That explains "Magna *** lade" (lol I don't speak Latin, can you tell?). Though I'm not sure why they would use the Latin word with English. I wouldn't say "mit bun" (German).

[MinderMutsig]

That explains "Magna *** lade" (lol I don't speak Latin, can you tell?). Though I'm not sure why they would use the Latin word with English. I wouldn't say "mit bun" (German).In my experience sites like this are often from South America and most of the time the person (read: fairly young girls) are not aware that they are doing anything wrong.

That may explain the latin-style use of the word.

[cmg]

I wouldn't say "mit bun" (German).

:D


(Ten characters worth)

[Elithia]

That may explain the latin-style use of the word.

I've heard the word used fairly frequently to mean "serving two purposes": study-c*m-bedroom is the example I've heard. It's common English usage, at least where I live.