Inadvertently breaching copyright

[The Chairman]

While some would like to throw ScubaBoard under the bus in legal terms, you should realize that this site is composed of user-generated content that is not vetted by site staff. You agreed to this when you agreed to the ToS. Lawsuit after lawsuit has determined that we are not liable (responsible) for what you post. We discourage the use of copyrighted materials, be they graphic or not and encourage user creativity. Here is how we handle copyright: if the OWNER of the copyrighted material complains about their use, we will gladly remove such material from the site in a timely manner as required by law.

You should also know that ScubaBoard retains copyright for everything posted by users on our site. We can delete, modify and repost that content as we see fit. You also retain copyright, which allows you to repost your content anywhere you desire.

 

[Storker]

Sure. The problem is, as @kelemvor pointed out, that the uploads happen behind the scenes. I doubt if the average member can be expected to understand that SB, unlike any other discussion board I've visited, doesn't just inline-link external stuff, but actually makes a copy of it on its own server. Heck, I discovered it by accident myself.

In this case, I think that spelling it out instead of sweeping it under the carpet will reduce the risk that someone inadvertently breaches copyright. It's not a case of throwing SB under the bus, it's a case of providing information for those who want to respect copyright.

 

[kelemvor]

Sure. The problem is, as @kelemvor pointed out, that the uploads happen behind the scenes. I doubt if the average member can be expected to understand that SB, unlike any other discussion board I've visited, doesn't just inline-link external stuff, but actually makes a copy of it on its own server.

In this case, I think that spelling it out instead of sweeping it under the carpet will reduce the risk that someone inadvertently breaches copyright.

That's exactly it. The user didn't upload the photo to scubaboard at all. The user posted a link to the photo. Scubaboard then goes out and downloads the image and changes the post to link to the local server instead of the remote server. You guys (or the server, on your behalf) are doing the downloading and "posting" in this case. There's not even a notification to the user that scubaboard is downloading the image or modifying the user's post.

And, I'm just throwing in for the record - I'm not trying to throw you guys under the bus. I'm just trying to point out there is a risky situation going on. Probably nothing will ever come of it, unless there happens to be a copyrighted image linked and the owner cares enough to cause a problem. I certainly hope nothing ever comes of it, I enjoy using scubaboard and don't want to see it disappear.

 

[The Chairman]

Where the image is being hosted is of little consequence. A link is just as problematic if the image is being displayed. Yes, we've been asked to remove links as well as images. The difference is only esoteric.

unlike any other discussion board I've visited,

This came about as a direct result of sites being sued over "stealing bandwidth". More and more sites are using this, including Facebook and every large forum I know of.

Probably nothing will ever come of it,

This is inaccurate. As required by law, if a copyrighted image is identified as problematic by the owner, we will gladly remove it from the server. We follow the law.

 

[uncfnp]

I am completely clueless when it comes to this stuff.

Say someone asked a question how to rig a pony and I answer with what I think is a link (may be using the term wrong) to another site, is this a copyright violation?

 

[The Chairman]

Say someone asked a question how to rig a pony and I answer with what I think is a link (may be using the term wrong) to another site, is this a copyright violation?

It's only a violation if the owner complains. The problem is rectified when they ask us to remove the content and we do. ScubaBoard is cited all the time and we like that. It's a boost to our popularity and it's the way the Interwebs was intended to work. Most sites feel the same way. It's only a big deal if you make it a big deal.

Persons who post images on the internet have a plethora of options to deter people from copying their copyright. Not using one of those options tells us that you really don't mind someone sharing your image. Most of us really don't care that someone uses our pictures elsewhere. A few do, and they have the option to follow the mechanism of the law and ask that such material is removed. Or else they can just continue to gripe about it.

 

[uncfnp]

Would it be helpful to include in the post the name of the site where the image was found?

 

[Storker]

I am completely clueless when it comes to this stuff.

Say someone asked a question how to rig a pony and I answer with what I think is a link (may be using the term wrong) to another site, is this a copyright violation?

No, but if you copied the contents off that webpage and posted it without approval from the owner, that would be a copyright violation.

 

[The Chairman]

Would it be helpful to include in the post the name of the site where the image was found?

Attribution is always appreciated and is simply common courtesy.

 

[Lorenzoid]

Here's a Wikipedia explanation of the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. As The Chairman pointed out, the gist of it is that SB is protected against liability by taking down the material upon notice from the copyright owner.