a friend of mine recently found some of his pictures on tww and was concerned that you guys are slapping logos on the pictures without actually having the right of ownership over the pictures. I'm not really taking sides here. but I've always thought that hte stamping of pictures was a really bad idea just for the sheer amount of stolen creative property and porn that are posted here. I'm assuming that the picture is a means by which to show people where the picture is hyperlinked from instead.


wouldn't it be a better idea to just disable hyperlinking?

3/3/2004 9:55:24 PM

a very thought provoking thread. He has a good point.

[Edited on March 3, 2004 at 10:09 PM. Reason : Raven threw me off. srry.]

3/3/2004 9:57:34 PM

Thank you


and I'm a guy.

3/3/2004 9:57:56 PM

Once someone post there stuff on a public website, its public domain. Thats why its ussually a bad idea to post a photo on TWW if its somethign you value, because its easy to steal, and impossible to trace. If someone submits the photo to something like collegehumor.com, then you've pretty much given them permission to publish and use your work, and they are free to slap their logo on it.

Lesson learned, if your a serious photographer, this is not a place to post a picture.

3/3/2004 10:38:44 PM

yeah you give up ownership when you post it here. you agreed to it when you signed up

Quote :

"The Wolf Web may use any contributed content in any way deemed necessary. The Wolf Web reserves the right to delete, modify, reproduce, and/or distribute all content and information transmitted between the client (you) and the server (us). "

if someone else put the pictures up without your permission then your beef is with that person, not tww.

3/3/2004 11:27:09 PM

Quote :

"Once someone post there stuff on a public website, its public domain. Thats why its ussually a bad idea to post a photo on TWW if its somethign you value, because its easy to steal, and impossible to trace. If someone submits the photo to something like collegehumor.com, then you've pretty much given them permission to publish and use your work, and they are free to slap their logo on it. Lesson learned, if your a serious photographer, this is not a place to post a picture."

the person who's pictures are used isn't a member









learn to fucking read or stay the fuck out of topics.


god some of you are thick.

Quote :

"The Wolf Web may use any contributed content in any way deemed necessary. The Wolf Web reserves the right to delete, modify, reproduce, and/or distribute all content and information transmitted between the client (you) and the server (us)."

btw I've checked and this isn't legal.

[Edited on March 4, 2004 at 1:07 AM. Reason : ]

3/4/2004 1:06:05 AM

I don't know if disabling hyperlinking would go over so well. That's part of the reason the galleries are so popluar. They can be used to post the images elsewhere.

3/4/2004 1:22:51 AM

well I know it wouldn't be popular


but a lot of people have very valid legal cases about this for copyright infringement.

3/4/2004 1:57:32 AM

There goes 99.9% of the porn stored here.

3/4/2004 3:18:40 AM

^^I guess I see your point then.

3/4/2004 5:35:45 AM

naw, if you post your pictures up here you should pretty much assume theyre gonna be fucked with

Quote :

"The information and content posted on this site are the property of The Wolf Web and are protected by U.S. and foreign copyright laws. By accessing this site, you agree to the following terms and conditions. If you do not agree, you have no right to be using this site. "

-http://www.thewolfweb.com/site_useragreement.aspx
-http://www.thewolfweb.com/site_disclaimer.aspx

3/4/2004 6:32:37 AM

Quote :

"I don't know if disabling hyperlinking would go over so well. That's part of the reason the galleries are so popluar. They can be used to post the images elsewhere."

Even more reason to disable it. That could be one of the things that was slowing TWW down bad. Kill that and try bringing back searching and what not.

3/4/2004 9:18:32 AM

^ those are probably two completly different issues.

3/4/2004 10:31:48 AM

The owner of the copyrighted photo is not a member of tww, did not u/l the picture, nor did the owner of the copyrighted photo give the tww member permission. Is how I'm interpreting the story

Raven, I would suggest you have your photographer friend write the management here and ask that the picture be removed from the server.

[Edited on March 4, 2004 at 11:31 AM. Reason : fuck quoting]

3/4/2004 11:27:10 AM

personally I find hyperlinking much more useful than the search feature. 50 images free with no bandwidth or size limit is great.

3/4/2004 12:10:07 PM

Speaking of legal questions, I know there's a pic on the server that shows a woman being fucked by a dog. Is tww legally responsible for breaking the law, or is it the user that u/led it, or both?

3/4/2004 1:40:17 PM

now that is just making a mockery of a valid question

3/4/2004 1:50:02 PM

Quote :

"now that is just making a mockery of a valid question"

No. If we're talking about legal questions, bestiality would qualify as a valid question.

3/4/2004 1:53:18 PM

What if the pic of the dog was taken in a country where that is legal?

And as far as raven's question goes, I doubt TWW would be responsible. It would probably go back to the responsibility of the person that uploaded it without permission. Were these pictures that your friend took, or pictures with your friend in them? I'm assuming they are pics that your friend actually took and thats why they think they have rights to them? Were they uploaded by someone outside of your circle of friends? If so, how did the person that uploaded them get them? Maybe they had already been introduced into the public domain by someone else and thats why they assumed it was ok to put them here.

3/4/2004 6:35:40 PM

Quote :

"And as far as raven's question goes, I doubt TWW would be responsible. It would probably go back to the responsibility of the person that uploaded it without permission. Were these pictures that your friend took, or pictures with your friend in them? I'm assuming they are pics that your friend actually took and thats why they think they have rights to them? Were they uploaded by someone outside of your circle of friends? If so, how did the person that uploaded them get them? Maybe they had already been introduced into the public domain by someone else and thats why they assumed it was ok to put them here."

If someone has copyrighted a photo, has not given permission to anyone to use it then I think the person who holds the copyright does have legal recourse. Also, since the image is stored on tww's server, I believe they are responsible for violating copyrights. [possession blah blah]

Quote :

" MY WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHER SAYS THAT I CANNOT POST COPIES OF MY WEDDING PICTURES ON THE INTERNET, CLAIMING THAT HE RETAINS THE COPYRIGHT. THERE IS NO CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT THAT STATES WHO HOLDS THE COPYRIGHT. SINCE I HIRED HIM, DON'T I OWN THE COPYRIGHT? If he has the copyright, he can control the works. One approach that bears some element of risk, however, is just post it and if he finds out, let him sue you and have a judge or jury decide. If it was your understanding that you would own the images, and especially if you told him you planned to post them on the Net, you may win. But get a lawyer to advise you locally before you do as if it comes to litigation, you'd best be prepared and fully understand the consequences. Obviously this is all about money -- he wants more (as photographers traditionally make their money by further orders and not the taking of pictures). Getting him to name his price to relinquish his rights should limit the possible damages he may recover. "

http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/copyright_law/wedding_photos_ownership.htm

3/4/2004 6:55:01 PM

yes, but can't you still satirize copyrighted material (i.e. photoshop)

3/4/2004 7:36:01 PM

Actually, I don't think you're allowed to modify the original photo if it's copyrighted.

3/4/2004 7:45:55 PM

I know its been brought up before that paid accounts should be able to get rid of the watermark.

I guess the original point was to get the name out.


But if you are posting the picture on this website, aren't you violating the copyright anyways, regardless of watermark?

3/4/2004 8:07:54 PM

Quote :

"But if you are posting the picture on this website, aren't you violating the copyright anyways, regardless of watermark? "

I think so. Unless you've gotten permission from the copyright holder. I don't know, I'm not a copyright lawyer.

This subject might get more responses if it were in the Lounge.

3/4/2004 8:13:13 PM

A friend of mine took the picture.



he isn't a user here nor did he upload it.


it was saved and uploaded by people that weren't related to the photographer at all.

3/5/2004 5:56:35 AM

Quote :

"A friend of mine took the picture. he isn't a user here nor did he upload it. it was saved and uploaded by people that weren't related to the photographer at all."

Well if he didn't file a copyright on the photo, then a big "boo-hoo, poor baby" to him. Tell him to call the wwaaaahhhmbulance.

He's pretty much in the same boat as Joie, kasey and AnnLove now, isn't he?

He may want to consider getting his own account here to do his own crying.

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 7:46 AM. Reason : .]

3/5/2004 7:45:13 AM

You don't have to "file" a copyright.... When something is created, it is copyrighted by the creator.

3/5/2004 11:33:18 AM

^good luck proving it without having the paperwork. I guess I meant filing a copyright registration.

Quote :

"WHAT WORKS ARE PROTECTED? Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories: literary works; musical works, including any accompanying words dramatic works, including any accompanying music pantomimes and choreographic works pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works motion pictures and other audiovisual works sound recordings architectural works These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most "compilations" may be registered as "literary works"; maps and architectural plans may be registered as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works." "

Quote :

"HOW TO SECURE A COPYRIGHT Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following Note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See "Copyright Registration." Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. "Copies" are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. "Phonorecords" are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the "work") can be fixed in sheet music (" copies") or in phonograph disks (" phonorecords"), or both. If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date. "

Quote :

"COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following: Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim. Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin. If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate. If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner. Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies. For additional information, request Publication No. 563 "How to Protect Your Intellectual Property Right," from: U.S. Customs Service, P.O. Box 7404, Washington, D.C. 20044. See the U.S. Customs Service Website at http://www.customs.gov for online publications. Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright. Unlike the law before 1978, when a work has been registered in unpublished form, it is not necessary to make another registration when the work becomes published, although the copyright owner may register the published edition, if desired. "

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp

3/5/2004 11:45:52 AM

the guy has about 500 witnesses to say that he took the picture



so he's pretty much fine.


look you guys aren't really helping by arguing a bunch of shit thats misinformed and basically just wrong.


so why don't you kids run along and be a moron somewhere else K?

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 10:12 PM. Reason : ]

3/5/2004 10:11:15 PM

if their arguements are misinformed about the context surrounding these pictures, then the fault for that misinformation falls squarely on the creator of this thread... besides that, if these people are so misinformed about what is going on then how can you expect Jake/Joe to be better informed about the situation...

in other words, actually providing a moderate amount of details would go a long way towards making your point

beyond the context of the pictures, explaining statements like these...

Quote :

"btw I've checked and this isn't legal."

would probably also help in making your point... after all, just saying "this isn't legal" hardly qualifies as a convincing arguement

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 10:44 PM. Reason : .]

3/5/2004 10:43:46 PM

^ your reply isn't legal

3/5/2004 10:45:09 PM

Should've just contacted Jacob directly. I'm sure if you or "your friend" explained the situation and asked that the image be removed, it would have been done.

3/5/2004 11:11:17 PM

well I think its common sense that you can't just claim ownership of someone else's creative property


but I can see how some of you get confused with such a simple little idea.



also he's contacted them. but the bigger issue here is what happens when some of the porno sites get mad at the site for this kind of copyright issue?


bye bye tww most likely.


Ok I've decided that most of you need some kind of picture painted


ok lets say I go download porn from a site....


then I upload it here.


that means tww owns it?

now see how simple that is? makes sense right? I figured that it would be a simple correlation from the not legal part... but shit most of you didn't even realize till halfway through that the person in question isn't a twwer so its not like I'm holding my breath for the braintrust here.

[Edited on March 6, 2004 at 1:10 AM. Reason : ]

3/6/2004 1:07:37 AM

I'm sure your condescending attitude will make people want to go out of their way to help you out.

3/6/2004 2:35:13 AM

Hey I can't help it you guys don't read

3/6/2004 2:56:02 AM

Seriously, I did understand what you read the first time. My mistake was assuming that your friend had registered for a copyright.

I do agree with you that tww by simply slapping the logo on a photo that is uploaded does not make it their property, and that tww's disclaimer is not legal.

I have seen websites that say something to the effect of, "if you have ownership or copyright of a photograph stored on this site, contact me and I will remove it." I think if your friend provided a direct link to the photo in question and contacted Jacob, he'd remove it.

Personally, I too would like to see the, "the wolfweb.com" logo removed. I'm not going to hold tww responsible for monitoring every upload that people make, but tww should delete the photo if someone holding the copyright contacts them and asks that it be removed.

If tww refuses, then hire a lawyer.

3/6/2004 3:12:40 AM

He's already gone the lawyer route



from what he's told me anyways.


and as for registering each photo for a copyright? I don't know a single pro photographer that does that.

[Edited on March 6, 2004 at 3:14 AM. Reason : ]

3/6/2004 3:13:32 AM

Quote :

"I know its been brought up before that paid accounts should be able to get rid of the watermark"

i, for one, would get a paid account if it would nix the watermark.

3/6/2004 4:09:10 AM

i'm not saying that there isn't a clear problem with how pictures are handled on this site...

but the fact that you have to keep adding info piece by piece to the thread (and then claiming we should read something that you havn'e even posted, like the laws defending your claims), shows a serious lack of a complete arguement on your part...

other people in this thread cannot be blamed for your inability to provide necessary information

in fact, the only one who seems to be posting relevent information (besides the scant few background details you have given) is pryderi...

and on top of htat, how do you expect them to be able to remove the pictures if you have failed to mention which pictures are in question

[Edited on March 6, 2004 at 9:48 AM. Reason : l]

3/6/2004 9:44:20 AM

I've got two things here



1. a problem that I have with the site

2. peons like you that don't matter coming here adding information that doesn't matter


this was for the admins of the site only so please shoo.

3/6/2004 6:08:40 PM

you know damned well that they don't pay a lot of attention to the Feedback Forum anymore...

so posting something here is more about posting it for others to see than it is posting for Jake/Joe to see...

you could have pmed them, used the contact form (or suggested that your friend use the contact form), or hell, you've been on here long enuogh that you could probably get their personal contact info and speak to them directly...

so either A: you had no intention of this thread being just for the owners of this site, or B: you're lazy

as for information that doesn't matter... well, all i asked is that you provide the information that you're claiming to know, laws related to this matter, some kind of listing of the pictures in question (since that kind of listing is somewhat important)... you know, something more than "i say you should do this, so do it"

[Edited on March 6, 2004 at 6:30 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2004 6:25:05 PM

I emailed them as well as posted here. I figured that it would be easier to just send the info to as many sources as possible.


shoo.

3/6/2004 6:40:38 PM

ah well, it's funny... you just ask someone to back up the statements they're making and suddenly you're getting shooed left and right...

3/6/2004 8:34:04 PM

ill break your legs honky

3/6/2004 8:50:53 PM

Tim go away. I don't really care what you think. you're not really involved here.

3/6/2004 8:52:02 PM

i wanna see the picture in question

3/8/2004 3:07:43 PM