|
Post by AeroCooper on May 26, 2014 7:28:13 GMT -5
As some of you probably saw, the great website 'aeronewsdaily' had to shut down recently due to being threatened with huge fines for innocently posting an image. I have been doing research on the subject for a few days now and although there are varying opinions, this is something that can cause a lot of headaches and possibly financial difficulties for little forums such as this one. Before you say "That couldn't happen here", trust me, there are hundreds of examples out there of little forums, blogs, non-profits, etc out there that have posted about it happening to them.
I have since gone through and either cleaned up or deleted over 600 posts and deleted 90 threads altogether in an effort to remove any images that are not obviously owned by the member who posted them. Most of them were my posts, but I apologize to any others I had to delete in the process.
So, what does this mean to you? Well, obviously I don't want to be sued or threatened, so the way I see it there are 3 options.
A) Don't allow any images that are not taken by a member here, period. This would be fine with me, but I can see this as being a lot of work reminding, removing, arguing over what is allowed, etc., and would also make the forum less visually interesting. For the record, it seems that YouTube videos are not subject to these limitations. If YouTube posted the video and offered a link then they are the ones liable if someone doesn't like it.
B) Let one of you who thinks you are up to the challenge take over the forum. If I did this, I would certainly be happy to stay on either temporarily or permanently to help out as much as needed.
C) There is another piece of this puzzle. Another Aerosmith site (not AF1) is opening a forum soon and has offered to 'merge' with us. By merge, they mean close this forum and I go over there to help out. I have told them that I probably am not interested in being an admin at another site, but it does leave the option of just shutting this down and any of us who are interested could all head over there instead.
So, unless one of you is a lawyer and willing to offer me free services for life, those are our options.
Your thoughts/comments? Post them here, or PM me if you want to discuss it privately.
|
|
|
Post by bostonian on May 26, 2014 8:16:41 GMT -5
I love this place, as it is a more open and honest assessment of the band. Some may call it a hater's board, but to me it shows the band, warts and all. I think it should continue personally. In term's of images not owned, we all have to be very careful in terms of that sort of thing, so that isn't an issue here.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Join Date:
May 2, 2024 10:39:17 GMT -5
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2014 8:38:47 GMT -5
My 2 cents: Coop, I can understand your concerns. NO one wants legal issues. So....people need to be made aware that posting of anything that is not theirs especially pictures will be deleted ASAP. Now things that can be shared (ie. shows links to share or says share) like You Tube or articles, let people know these things are fine. Also, ProBoards does have an option to limit what can be seen publicly. Something you may want to consider doing.
|
|
|
Post by Zen on May 26, 2014 8:41:59 GMT -5
Disclaimer...disclaimer ...disclaimer
www.sexysteventyler.com/
I love that site and they have been going for years, and almost everything posted has the disclaimer notification, including ross halfin's pix...
Suggestion....bring up a disclaimer notice, similar to the site I posted above, that indemnifies this site for being responsible for pix being posted by users...
|
|
|
Post by AeroCooper on May 26, 2014 9:06:24 GMT -5
Disclaimer...disclaimer ...disclaimer
www.sexysteventyler.com/
I love that site and they have been going for years, and almost everything posted has the disclaimer notification, including ross halfin's pix...
Suggestion....bring up a disclaimer notice, similar to the site I posted above, that indemnifies this site for being responsible for pix being posted by users...
Thanks Zen, I have indeed posted a disclaimer in the rules section. But, according to all I have read, that means nothing to the people who are sue happy, and does not absolve the forum owner of anything. And just because a given site has not been harassed is no reason to think they will not be in the future. aeronewsdaily is a perfect example. They operated for a long time with no issue whatsoever, and one day there is a $150,000 email in their inbox.
|
|
|
Post by AeroCooper on May 26, 2014 9:10:24 GMT -5
My 2 cents: Coop, I can understand your concerns. NO one wants legal issues. So....people need to be made aware that posting of anything that is not theirs especially pictures will be deleted ASAP. Now things that can be shared (ie. shows links to share or says share) like You Tube or articles, let people know these things are fine. Also, ProBoards does have an option to limit what can be seen publicly. Something you may want to consider doing. Thanks Heather. This does seem like a reasonable compromise. The only drawbacks are what I already stated in the OP. We all know that pictures are half the fun on a site like this one. I'm definitely not counting this option out though, as I agree with Bostonian that this is a fun place with a good group of people and a good balance of opinions.
|
|
|
Post by lin on May 26, 2014 9:18:22 GMT -5
As some of you probably saw, the great website 'aeronewsdaily' had to shut down recently due to being threatened with huge fines for innocently posting an image. I have been doing research on the subject for a few days now and although there are varying opinions, this is something that can cause a lot of headaches and possibly financial difficulties for little forums such as this one. Before you say "That couldn't happen here", trust me, there are hundreds of examples out there of little forums, blogs, non-profits, etc out there that have posted about it happening to them. I have since gone through and either cleaned up or deleted over 600 posts and deleted 90 threads altogether in an effort to remove any images that are not obviously owned by the member who posted them. Most of them were my posts, but I apologize to any others I had to delete in the process. So, what does this mean to you? Well, obviously I don't want to be sued or threatened, so the way I see it there are 3 options. A) Don't allow any images that are not taken by a member here, period. This would be fine with me, but I can see this as being a lot of work reminding, removing, arguing over what is allowed, etc., and would also make the forum less visually interesting. For the record, it seems that YouTube videos are not subject to these limitations. If YouTube posted the video and offered a link then they are the ones liable if someone doesn't like it. B) Let one of you who thinks you are up to the challenge take over the forum. If I did this, I would certainly be happy to stay on either temporarily or permanently to help out as much as needed. C) There is another piece of this puzzle. Another Aerosmith site (not AF1) is opening a forum soon and has offered to 'merge' with us. By merge, they mean close this forum and I go over there to help out. I have told them that I probably am not interested in being an admin at another site, but it does leave the option of just shutting this down and any of us who are interested could all head over there instead. So, unless one of you is a lawyer and willing to offer me free services for life, those are our options. Your thoughts/comments? Post them here, or PM me if you want to discuss it privately. First let me say thank you to you for creating and moderating this site. I'd really hate to see it go. I've enjoyed posting here and appreciate that folks respect each other, and their opinions. I belong to a Nascar forum that I also think is pro-boards, and they have a strict rule that if you post pictures, or articles, that you provide the link and give credit. Otherwise the post gets deleted. However, if that's not an option, then I think you should have a strict rule that we don't post pics. Can we post links?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Join Date:
May 2, 2024 10:39:17 GMT -5
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2014 9:19:38 GMT -5
You know my feelings on this. I love this forum and all. However, I don't want you to lose your livelihood over it. Coop, you do what you feel is best and know that you have our support. I think it's cruddy that Getty thinks they can get away with this garbage. I can think of numerous forums that post crazy gifs and pics on a daily that never even gave a thought to the fact that they could be sued for it. But as you said, just because they haven't doesn't mean they can't. You have to protect yourself also in this sue happy world. I don't think it's right or fair that they can sue before asking that the images be removed but what can you do? Just ask people to be as careful as they can when finding pics and posting them.
|
|
|
Post by AeroCooper on May 26, 2014 9:23:15 GMT -5
Links are perfectly fine. Posting an image is not though, even if you give full credit and a link back to the original. On the other hand, posting an article with a link back seems to be ok - but not the image in the article because that site has paid for the right to use the image.
I also have asked ProBoards for advice on this, but I'm currently waiting for a reply still.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Join Date:
May 2, 2024 10:39:17 GMT -5
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2014 9:28:30 GMT -5
I hope ProBoards comes back with a response which is doable. They may not, saying it is your responsibility. Which is where, we the participants need to also be responsible.
|
|
|
Post by Zen on May 26, 2014 9:39:41 GMT -5
Links are perfectly fine. Posting an image is not though, even if you give full credit and a link back to the original. On the other hand, posting an article with a link back seems to be ok - but not the image in the article because that site has paid for the right to use the image. I also have asked ProBoards for advice on this, but I'm currently waiting for a reply still. I think I just figured it out! ^posting an article with a link back seems to be ok - but not the image in the article because that site has paid for the right to use the image. Getty Images had a big spit as did photogs like ross halfin and lots of others about there stuff being all over the web and they have never gotten paid for there stuff...
|
|
|
Post by AeroCooper on May 26, 2014 9:45:13 GMT -5
Zen, that is exactly the issue...well, on the surface at least. The underlying issue is the big companies just want to rake in bucks however they can.
|
|
~Michelle~
Pushing Play
Posts: 12
Join Date:
Apr 5, 2014 10:06:21 GMT -5
|
Post by ~Michelle~ on May 26, 2014 10:08:13 GMT -5
In all the years I spent on AF1 this was never an issue. It was never brought to my attention not to let people use Getty Images. Usually they were just thumbnail sized pictures if I remember right because you had to pay for a membership or something to get full sized pictures. I think everyone here is very respectful of the rules. Just don't allow the images and only post the links to those pictures and I think you should be ok. I thought this article was interesting and especially the comments below. Most of them said they would just delete the pictures and ignore the letter and everything was fine. www.seotrainingsw.com/2011/09/getty-images-demand-letter/
|
|
|
Post by Zen on May 26, 2014 11:07:54 GMT -5
Zen, that is exactly the issue...well, on the surface at least. The underlying issue is the big companies just want to rake in bucks however they can. Yeah...and about that..........how much do you charge us? You know for your operating costs and all that stuff?
aeronewsdaily started allowing advertising, the people running it didn't get cent, but it then became a paid site, because they allowed adverts
|
|
|
Post by AeroCooper on May 26, 2014 11:17:52 GMT -5
I get what you're saying zen, but according to what I've seen online, it makes no difference if you are making money or not. They don't care. They only care that you used their image without paying a fee for it.
They have gone after bloggers, forums, and even churches for using a single image.
|
|