Copyright Infringement, You might want to Check your Terms of Service... Options

[EriaNight]

Alright it is pretty obvious to me and to most of the world that the content (graphics, blogs, about 75% of everything CB has uses stock photos of actors/actresses/singers/people/etc that the artists didn't take).

This would be all find and dandy and no one would care If a few of us (not mentioning names so people won't get pissed at us) hadn't realized a Few things in the CB submission process.

You guys promote artist right?
And art?

Here is a nice definition of what Copyright Infringment is from Wikipedia

Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of copyrighted material in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works that build upon it....In many jurisdictions, such as the United States, copyright infringement is a strict liability tort or crime.

I Know what CB says about it. For those who do NOT know what CB says about Copyright Infridgement....here it is

CreateBlog respects the intellectual property of others, and we ask our users to do the same. CreateBlog may, in appropriate circumstances and at its discretion, disable and/or terminate the accounts of users who may be repeat infringers. If you believe that your work has been copied in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, or your intellectual property rights have been otherwise violated, please provide CreateBlog's Copyright Agent the following information:

* an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright or other intellectual property interest;
* a description of the copyrighted work or other intellectual property that you claim has been infringed;
* a description of where the material that you claim is infringing is located on the site;
* your address, telephone number, and email address;
* a statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law;
* a statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the above information in your Notice is accurate and that you are the copyright or intellectual property owner or authorized to act on the copyright or intellectual property owner's behalf.

Please email claims of copyright or other intellectual property infringement to copyright at createblog dot com.

Now why am I mad? No one really cares if you aren't making money on any of the submissions. I wouldn't either. And you probably aren't. Only differences in the submission TERMSthere is are a few lines that strictly you just can't legally say.

For example...

By posting or submitting content to CreateBlog, you grant CreateBlog the right to use, reproduce, display, perform, adapt, modify, distribute, have distributed, and promote the content in any form, anywhere and for any purpose; and warrant and represent that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content and that public posting and use of your content by CreateBlog will not infringe or violate the rights of any third party.

If you contribute layouts, scripts, graphics, tutorials, creative suggestions, ideas, notes, drawings, or other information (collectively, the "Submissions"), the Submissions shall be deemed, and shall remain, the property of CreateBlog. None of the Submissions shall be subject to any obligation of confidence on the part of CreateBlog, and CreateBlog shall not be liable for any use or disclosure of any Submissions. Without limitation of the foregoing, CreateBlog shall exclusively own all now known or hereafter existing rights to the Submissions of every kind and nature throughout the universe and shall be entitled to unrestricted use of the Submissions for any purpose whatsoever, commercial or otherwise, without compensation to the provider of the Submissions.

Everything in Red you cannot claim without legally breaking the law. No Person who took the photographs of Rachel Bilson, Kiera Knightley, etc used in about half the layouts ever agreed to these terms! All the layouts with pictures of actors/actresses/etc taken by other people....CANNOT be used commercially no matter what you say! If you want to use the commercially, even if you ask the creator of the layout, that person cannot give you the permission.

I'm not trying to be picky or mean. And most of you will probably shout me down. But CB, you cannot do that. If you support a community of artists, then support the people who actually HAVE it as a JOB and don't say you have commerial rights that you definitely do not have. Sure the "creators of the layout" agreed to this, but you KNOW they probably couldn't really and legally agree to it. I know you don't want to be sued and i definitely couldn't sue you and wouldn't because i don't have the time nor really care, but It's wrong to claim that you have commerical rights over something you don't. I bet the reason the layouts aren't even used as "promotional" material is because you know you could get sued.

I'm not trying to be mean. In fact, I'd rather not be. And I understand as an admin on another forum and runner of a graphics site with 2 other CB members that it takes work and time. I just think you should change your terms a little so that your MEMBERS don't get in TROUBLE with the law??

[Retrogressive]

Now why am I mad? No one really cares if you aren't making money on any of the submissions. I wouldn't either. And you probably aren't. Only differences in the submission TERMSthere is are a few lines that strictly you just can't legally say.

Actually, I'm not sure if this is correct. But I am assuming CB IS making some cash by using other people's art. Because they are offering graphics and layouts with advertisements on the page. The graphics are why people visit the page and why CB would be getting money from the advertisements because of hits.


Who Can Claim Copyright?

Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.

In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author. Section 101 of the copyright law defines a "work made for hire" as:

* (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or
* (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as:
o a contribution to a collective work
o a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work
o a translation
o a supplementary work
o a compilation
o an instructional text
o a test
o answer material for a test
o an atlas

if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire....

The authors of a joint work are co-owners of the copyright in the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.

Copyright in each separate contribution to a periodical or other collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole and vests initially with the author of the contribution.

Okay, as I'm sure many people know who have submitted a submission to CB that they are addressed with a "By clicking on "submit", you agree with the Terms of Use." on the submit button. This means that they are actually agreeing that CB holds their art (and the art of others that they googled for a blend et cetera, which as you pointed out cannot be possible).

if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire....

The authors of a joint work are co-owners of the copyright in the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.

Copyright in each separate contribution to a periodical or other collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole and vests initially with the author of the contribution.
Two General Principles

* Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy or phonorecord does not give the possessor the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a protected work does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright.
* Minors may claim copyright, but state laws may regulate the business dealings involving copyrights owned by minors. For information on relevant state laws, consult an attorney.

Transfering Copyright...?

Any or all of the copyright owner's exclusive rights or any subdivision of those rights may be transferred, but the transfer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent. Transfer of a right on a nonexclusive basis does not require a written agreement.

A copyright may also be conveyed by operation of law and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.

Copyright is a personal property right, and it is subject to the various state laws and regulations that govern the ownership, inheritance, or transfer of personal property as well as terms of contracts or conduct of business. For information about relevant state laws, consult an attorney.

Transfers of copyright are normally made by contract. The Copyright Office does not have any forms for such transfers. The law does provide for the recordation in the Copyright Office of transfers of copyright ownership. Although recordation is not required to make a valid transfer between the parties, it does provide certain legal advantages and may be required to validate the transfer as against third parties. For information on recordation of transfers and other documents related to copyright, request Circular 12, "Recordation of Transfers and Other Documents."

Now as the bolded goes I'm not sure. But I'm pretty sure a clickable button is not a signed agreement between anyone. If someone has further evidence for or otherwise please provide.

So... What's 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:

1. literary works;
2. musical works, including any accompanying words
3. dramatic works, including any accompanying music
4. pantomimes and choreographic works
5. pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
6. motion pictures and other audiovisual works
7. sound recordings
8. 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."

So... What's NOT Protected?


Now, this piqued my interest...

Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

*

Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)
*

Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
*

Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration
*

Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)

But WAIT Cb's terms say...

If you contribute layouts, scripts, graphics, tutorials, creative suggestions, ideas, notes, drawings, or other information (collectively, the "Submissions"), the Submissions shall be deemed, and shall remain, the property of CreateBlog. None of the Submissions shall be subject to any obligation of confidence on the part of CreateBlog, and CreateBlog shall not be liable for any use or disclosure of any Submissions. Without limitation of the foregoing, CreateBlog shall exclusively own all now known or hereafter existing rights to the Submissions of every kind and nature throughout the universe and shall be entitled to unrestricted use of the Submissions for any purpose whatsoever, commercial or otherwise, without compensation to the provider of the Submissions.

That's interesting...

Universal Ownership...?

There is no such thing as an "international copyright" that will automatically protect an author's writings throughout the entire world. Protection against unauthorized use in a particular country depends, basically, on the national laws of that country. However, most countries do offer protection to foreign works under certain conditions, and these conditions have been greatly simplified by international copyright treaties and conventions. For further information and a list of countries that maintain copyright relations with the United States, request Circular 38a, "International Copyright Relations of the United States."

CB:

Submissions of every kind and nature throughout the universe and shall be entitled to unrestricted use of the Submissions for any purpose whatsoever, commercial or otherwise, without compensation to the provider of the Submissions.

Well, I'm no lawyer and I'm not the encyclopedia for copyright infringement. But since this post has raised some questions regarding such, I'd really like to see the response.

Resource: http://www.copyright.gov/

[OneOfTheseDayz]

Ok I think Ill say that your nuts.... If we didn't copyright half of all layouts would be a giant blog of squggily lines. I am under the usumption that createblog does not make money from their layout but instead TShirts and other collectables.

Also do you notice that about 75% of personal websites use copyright infrigment??? You can't b telling me that someone on xanga right now isn't using a backround pic that they got from some graphics search or google..

I do understand that its rude to take pics of someone else and use them as your own. I generally contact the author of the artist and ask for permisson and genereally ( about 80%) say that its ok and ask if THEY can help. ( flatery, you have to love it) .


I think you should just realize that if we stopped infrigment we would have all most 0 layouts and they would be boring ones too.....

[Retrogressive]

Ok I think Ill say that your nuts.... If we didn't copyright half of all layouts would be a giant blog of squggily lines. I am under the usumption that createblog does not make money from their layout but instead TShirts and other collectables.

Also do you notice that about 75% of personal websites use copyright infrigment??? You can't b telling me that someone on xanga right now isn't using a backround pic that they got from some graphics search or google..

I do understand that its rude to take pics of someone else and use them as your own. I generally contact the author of the artist and ask for permisson and genereally ( about 80%) say that its ok and ask if THEY can help. ( flatery, you have to love it) .


I think you should just realize that if we stopped infrigment we would have all most 0 layouts and they would be boring ones too.....

You can't use "It's okay because it's the internet" as an excuse. That's called ILLEGAL.

[EriaNight]

drilotedahl ----


well....you do realize it's a legal issue and it really doesn't matter if you think I'm nuts or not? whether or not you stop the copyright infringement or not really doesn't matter because the law just doesn't care!!! You can still get sued.

We're saying change the terms, not to stop it anyway. You can't claim those things. CB isn't God.

[OneOfTheseDayz]

I would doubt that the goverment or anyone else would sue createblog... There are more important things in life than a site that GIVES AWAY FREE LAYOUTS for the betterment of mandkind.....

[Retrogressive]

I would doubt that the goverment or anyone else would sue createblog... There are more important things in life than a site that GIVES AWAY FREE LAYOUTS for the betterment of mandkind.....

In the best intrests of protecting artists I don't think the government or anyone else for that matter is going to say, "Oh they give away free layouts, let them have at it." It doesn't work like that. Also, it's an issue of people claiming (even if not stated) that the work is theirs. Which is not cool.

[EriaNight]

I would doubt that the goverment or anyone else would sue createblog... There are more important things in life than a site that GIVES AWAY FREE LAYOUTS for the betterment of mankind.....

The government wouldn't be sueing CB. Individual artists who took the photographs would. *raised eyebrow* And right now that's a TON OF artist that have that ability.

People could learn to make their own art....People on here have the inspiration, creativity. CB even WANTS ORIGINALITY....and not all of it uses copyrighted photos anyway. CB wouldn't have 0 layouts. Stop making up stuff.

and betterment of mankind? That's a HUGE and really bad conclusion to make. Many of the layouts on here in no way better mankind. In some ways I find many of them immature and sexist, but we won't discuss my issues on that. The point is by writing that CB can commercially use the layouts in their terms-- is illegal.

How old are you anyway? I mean. Unless you are 18 or older you can't SIGN (written) a contract. You can click a stupid little button that sells your soul, but you can't legally say you own something. Fight that.

[Retrogressive]

I would doubt that the goverment or anyone else would sue createblog... There are more important things in life than a site that GIVES AWAY FREE LAYOUTS for the betterment of mandkind.....

2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is an exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. Fair use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the involvement of money.

3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them.

Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and forward network where all the thousands of copies made are done at the command (rather than the consent) of the poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect when one posts to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement of material into the public domain. It is important to remember that when it comes to the law, computers never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are given commands, not permission. Only people can be given permission. Furthermore it is very difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly stated licence that the copier was aware of.

Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post the item in the first place. If the poster didn't, then all the copies are pirated, and no implied licence or theoretical reduction of the copyright can take place.

(*) Copyrights can expire after a long time, putting something into the public domain, and there are some fine points on this issue regarding older copyright law versions. However, none of this applies to material from the modern era, such as net postings.

Note that granting something to the public domain is a complete abandonment of all rights. You can't make something "PD for non-commercial use." If your work is PD, other people can even modify one byte and put their name on it.

4) "My posting was just fair use!"
See other notes on fair use for a detailed answer, but bear the following in mind:

The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't.

Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.) Famously, copying just 300 words from Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir for a magazine article was ruled as not fair use, in spite of it being very newsworthy, because it was the most important 300 words -- why he pardoned Nixon.

Note that most inclusion of text in followups and replies is for commentary, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it is almost surely fair use. Fair use isn't an exact doctrine, though. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case. There have been cases that go beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair use.

The "fair use" concept varies from country to country, and has different names (such as "fair dealing" in Canada) and other limitations outside the USA.

Facts and ideas can't be copyrighted, but their expression and structure can. You can always write the facts in your own wordsthough

See the DMCA alert for recent changes in the law.

9) "It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising."
It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you. Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, ask them. Usually that's not too hard to do. Time past, ClariNet published the very funny Dave Barry column to a large and appreciative Usenet audience for a fee, but some person didn't ask, and forwarded it to a mailing list, got caught, and the newspaper chain that employs Dave Barry pulled the column from the net, pissing off everybody who enjoyed it. Even if you can't think of how the author or owner gets hurt, think about the fact that piracy on the net hurts everybody who wants a chance to use this wonderful new technology to do more than read other people's flamewars.

"Take that and rewind it back." would be a funny thing to say here, but I won't.

Resource: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

[sadolakced acid]

what cB can do is put the responsibility on the individual.

personally, i don't see too much of a problem with saying that all submissions to cB remain the property of thier authors and can be removed if requested.

and then put in a checkbox on layout submissions that says "i verify that this layout is of my design and i do not violate any copyright laws in submitting this."

sure, people will still check it. but it does take the liability off of cb.

[Retrogressive]

what cB can do is put the responsibility on the individual.

personally, i don't see too much of a problem with saying that all submissions to cB remain the property of thier authors and can be removed if requested.

and then put in a checkbox on layout submissions that says "i verify that this layout is of my design and i do not violate any copyright laws in submitting this."

sure, people will still check it. but it does take the liability off of cb.

I really think this, or something like it should be taken in consideration.

To refresh everyone, these are CB's basic terms:

Basic Terms

* You must be 13 years and older to use this site.
* You are responsible for any activity that occurs under your screen name.
* You are responsible for keeping your password secure.
* You must not abuse, harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate other CreateBlog users.
* You may not use the CreateBlog.com service for any illegal or unauthorized purpose. International users agree to comply with all local laws regarding online conduct and acceptable content.
* You are solely responsible for your conduct and any data, text, information, screen names, graphics, photos, profiles, audio and video clips, links ("Content") that you submit, post, and display on the CreateBlog.com service.
* You must not modify, adapt or hack CreateBlog.com or modify another website so as to falsely imply that it is associated with CreateBlog.com.
* You must not create or submit unwanted email to any CreateBlog members ("Spam").
* You must not transmit any worms or viruses or any code of a destructive nature.
* You must not, in the use of CreateBlog, violate any laws in your jurisdiction (including but not limited to copyright laws).
* You may not redistribute, sell, or repost for download any Content found on CreateBlog on any medium (CD-Rom, website, etc) without the expressed written permission of CreateBlog.
* You must not remove the copyright notices inside each Content. **A copyright I'm not sure if CB technically has...
* Violation of any of these agreements will result in the termination of your CreateBlog.com account. While CreateBlog.com prohibits such conduct and content on its site, you understand and agree that CreateBlog cannot be responsible for the Content posted on its web site and you nonetheless may be exposed to such materials and that you use the CreateBlog.com service at your own risk.

[EriaNight]

sadolakced acid ---

that's asking a lot of their 18 or under users, is it not?

"Go ahead break the law for us!!!"
Oh goody....
In fact, i'm sure no one even READS the terms half of the time. CB is still liable to be sued. They need to take that out of their terms. Period.

I do agree though. They need to take this into consideration and fix it.

[add1cted2f1re]

well, my take on this is that cB is liable, yes, but so should the people who steal other people's art. there is proof of who did it b/c of who submitted it, and tracking an IP adress is not hard. another thing, i absolutly 100% agree that cB has NO right to claim that they OWN the layouts unless the operators themselves make them....

thats all..

hope i didnt sound ignorant

[demolished]

^
True. i just dont understand them or ... even remember it.

[*Zatanna*]

Um... if we were to actually take to heart everything being mentioned here, than the majority of the internet (which is made up of several sites to say the least, many of which are fansites) would be laid to rest.

This isn't the first time I've seen copyright infringement brought up on an internet forum. It came up almost a year ago during a fanfiction debate over copyrighted material (characters). So should fanfiction.net be closed?

The only person or persons able to legitimately have true concerns are the artists, writers, producers, etc. Quite frankly, for the most part they not only do not care, but they encourage the use of images, characters, plot lines etc as it peaks interests, keeps interests and might motivate people to buy their material. For example, on the dvd release of Serenity, Joss Whedon states how touching it is that there are so many fansites out there dedicated to his material.

As far as cB stating that layouts submitted here are copyrighted to cB, that's valid. I do not think the authors of this rule intend to claim everything a designer does as their own - just what is submitted *here*. cB stores a great deal on cB servers so yeah, what you submit here as a layout belongs here.

I apologize if I seem blase on the subject. It's just my take.

[hi-C]

^ Ditto to everything Zatanna just said.

And, EriaNight, while you do raise valid points, especially when it comes to the wording of cB's terms of service, but I will make these points.

1.

In addition, copyright, in most cases, does not prohibit one from acts such as modifying, defacing, or destroying his or her own legitimately obtained copies of copyrighted works, so long as duplication is not involved. However, in countries that implement moral rights, a copyright holder can in some cases successfully prevent the mutilation or destruction of a work that is publicly visible.

So technically, if you purchase a magazine and scan the image and do whatever you want to do with it, it's not copyright infringement.

2. You also have to take into consideration whether or not the art work under scrutiny complies with the doctrine of fair use. I'm pretty certain that everything submitted to createBlog fits the fair use doctrine.

And when you said you're not being picky, I hardly believe you.

[EriaNight]

^ Ditto to everything Zatanna just said.

And, EriaNight, while you do raise valid points, especially when it comes to the wording of cB's terms of service, but I will make these points.

1.

So technically, if you purchase a magazine and scan the image and do whatever you want to do with it, it's not copyright infringement.

2. You also have to take into consideration whether or not the art work under scrutiny complies with the doctrine of fair use. I'm pretty certain that everything submitted to createBlog fits the fair use doctrine.

And when you said you're not being picky, I hardly believe you.

actually you're wrong. Scanning is considered duplication. By duplicating it and providing it to other people...you broke the law. Sorry to inform you, but its true. I can't change that.

It's basically the same as putting it through a copy machine. Looks the same? Is the same. Promise i'm write. I've had to copyright several things because i'm a screenwriter. You probably won't believe it but whatever...

Also I didn't say you had to erase the database--I Said what the law simply states. Is that you guys cannot SAY That in the terms. You just can't. I can watch you write it, see you lie about it, But You do not in anywaylegally have commerical property over these layouts with images used made by other artists. You just don't and that's that. So change the stupid terms.

I don't care abou the fact that you are breaking the law by giving away free layouts with the stuff I CARE THAT YOU CLAIM YOU CAN USE IT TO MAKE MONEY. For some reason it really really annoys me. CB claims a lot of stuff they really have no claim to make.

Zatanna --you meantioned fansites. A ton of fansites are GIVEN the content they provide by artists (photographers, press for actors/actress, etc). Do your research. See who they credit. You can't assume such.

Madame C you are again wronge about Fair Use seeing as how it applies to NON-LICENSED Material. Why do you think CB won't let people ask where to get music for their blogs? Because many sites don't have the license to do that. BMG has to give people the rights (for many songs) to license the music and use on a website. Same applies to photography only it's the choice of the photographer who took the picture in the scan. You weren't picky enough.

[Heathasm]

actually you're wrong. Scanning is considered duplication. By duplicating it and providing it to other people...you broke the law. Sorry to inform you, but its true. I can't change that.

yeah, my friend works at fed ex kinkos, and they dont let people copy copyrighted art...even if it just LOOKS like it has a copyright because its illegal

[add1cted2f1re]

arguing wont get anywhere. we all know WHAT the law SAYS. we all read it up there... but the more you argue, the more frustrated you all will get. you ALL raised VERY valid point. but i would have to disagree that the artists do not care. most of them go to great lengths to prevent people from taking their stuff.

however, a lot of the laws, such as the ones molly (erianight) has brought up can be INTERPRETED in MANY differnt ways.

-carrie is right
-molly is right
-i am right

etc

WHY!? b/c we all INTERPRET things different.

i can see how scanning a magazine and showing people can be considered "illegal" but then again i can see how it does no harm and could be brushed off as "okay"

[EriaNight]

thanks matt, i agree....


but the POINT i keep TRYING TO MAKE is CB CANNOT USE THESE COMMERCIALLY. Either take out the ads on your site, rewrite the terms, or get rid of your layouts. Do it however you want. If you don't you're breaking the law. I brought it up to inform you not for you to guys to get mad. People tend to think they know everything here by reading two things on wikipedia. I used wikipedia to help you, but guess what you tried to bring it back at me thinking i really didn't know what i was talking about. I do.

Just get over it. CB needs to rewrite its terms before they blatantly get 13 year olds to sell their soul. Its wrong to make people believe what they are doing is legal. It isn't

[DaTru KataLYST]

Yes yes. Feel the anger run through you!

LoL, anyways, am I being ignorant: why can't cB claim commercial rights to submissions?

[EriaNight]

OH MY GOD READ THE WHOLE THREAD BEFORE YOU POST. *dies*
Good job for quoting blank space....

*ignores*
I can tell you what i do....on TC everything made was made with our OWN STOCK. HOWEVER WE DON't ADVERTISE ON OUR FORUM AND MAKE MONEY OFF OF IT.

And on HITHERSTON FORUMS we don't advertise either.
You could try looking at the forums that you are a member of every once and a while *cough* retrofied *cough* and see that we moved to a place without advertisements as well

By the way, I'm sure you've looked at TC's rules and structures considering you don't contribute to it at all. I bet you couldn't explain in 3 words what we do without looking at it one more time. It's a FILM PRODUCTION COMPANY. and everything i post there I have permission from in signed contracts from the actors and actresses in them.

As For Hitherston, the only other forum I admin now with two other Createblog members, well all stock in the database, all resources, all textures, and many of the avatars and quite a few of the graphics 100 % created by the user. If they aren't we don't ADVERTISE COMMERCIALLY anyway so we aren't making money off of it and that was the original point of this thread AMEN.

[Gigi]

WHY!? b/c we all INTERPRET things different.

NO, really?

*rolls eyes*

createBlog is not a commercial site. It's community driven, it's non-profit. Oh, so you see the Google-bot, and the ads around here? It costs Jusun money to run these forums. The advertising only pays for that. There is no profit involved.

By artistically creating something new out of copyrighted images, YOU ARE CREATING SOMETHING NEW. Let's get something straight here. WE ARE NOT A STOCK PHOTOS SITE, OR A SCANS SITE. WE ARE A BLOGGING COMMUNITY SITE. Meaning, unless we post graphics, layouts, or anything BLOGGING-RELATED without permission from the creator, it's nothing to make a big deal about. We're not trying to pass off Mario Testino's new editorial in Vogue as photographed by say, me. Or Patrick Demarchelier's advertisements as our own. Because they're not. We're taking these photos, making something (I stress) NEW out of them, and therefore we have the right to make a commercial claim with these NEW layouts and graphics.

http://www.hitherston.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=97
^ "Yup, that's right. I know Emma Watson personally and I personally took that photo of her so using those pictures in a blend IS PERFECTLY FINE."

It doesn't matter if you're not a goddamned commercial site. If I use your definition, you're still trying to pass off something as your own.

[DaTru KataLYST]

Ma'am, that was very rude to ignore me.


Please, your word holds no weight right now. "Trust me! I am right!" I do not care if you think you are right. What I would love though is something I can read from a 3rd party reference about the issue at hand, that way I can accurately assess the issue. And maybe you may gain a supporter, too.

I have read the thread, thank you very much.
I was reading it all day, and I've talked to the mods about it as well.
It seems like you have wasted your time trying to find every little thing wrong with cB.

I wasn't quoting blank space, my point of the quote was to direct it at you.
I don't know where all this anger is coming from, but you need to calm down.

She was talking about me, lol.

[EriaNight]

http://www.hitherston.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=97
^ "Yup, that's right. I know Emma Watson personally and I personally took that photo of her so using those pictures in a blend IS PERFECTLY FINE."

It doesn't matter if you're not a goddamned commercial site. If I use your definition, you're still trying to pass off something as your own.

Good thing We accepted it already.........*raised eyebrow* You should read OUR TERMS first. and it DOES matter if you are a commercial site. and by the way everything paid for where hitherston is concerned comes out of my brothers OWN POCKET not a GOOGLE advertisement. Learn to work for a living.

BrownSugar--you think i wasted my time? I didn't read the thread all day. It doesn't take me that long to read a thread.

and gigi go WAY WAY BACK TO the first page where Retrogressive's post is, please and re-read it and re-read it.....It will tell you why making something "new" out of something "old" that still looks distinctly similar is still breaking the law.

and Brown Sugar again.

It seems like you have wasted your time trying to find every little thing wrong with cB.

Have I found everything wrong? My forum and Hitherston doesn't need a by laws section to govern itself.