Site & Art issue.

[Ruby]

Hola Guildies.

I've been a member of site moderation, on and off, for around two years now. During that time I've seen this issue come up a few times, and each time there's a quick and simple solution; problem is there's always lingering questions. The issue in question? "Stolen" art. That is art posted online that winds up on a CS, or an OOC thread/IntCheck thread.

So here's a hypothetical on how these situations go down from my experience, and I've been involved in three cases of it so far:

• Person claiming to be artist behind piece of art used on a CS from a RP thread posted 2-3 years ago shows up. Claims to have PMed the person behind the CS, usually doesn't get a response--after a few years that no response isn't really a shock. Then contacts site staff demanding we remove the image.
• We ask for proof they're the artist behind the image. They provide it.
• We delete the post in question.

So this naturally raises a few questions.

Should we have a policy for this? We want to help out an artist who has legal claim to a work of art, but at the same time we don't want artists harassing members. Odds are the member didn't "steal" anything, odds are they found the image on Pinterest, or Tumblr, etc, etc. So far deleting the post with the offending image has been an easy solution because the posts have always been so old. What if it's a new post? Obviously we'd contact the member with the image in their CS and ask for it's removal, or should we? What if they say no? Should we edit their posts ourselves?

Any thoughts? Any questions you think are important to consider? Let us know.

Thanks!

[Jove]

The only policy I can imagine for that is for people to provide credit and sources for all of their pictures. But what's the point? The issue barely ever comes up, and if someone really wants to find those images they can use a reverse image search. It's not RP posts from years ago stealing money from online artists. They should spend the time they use hunting down "unauthorized" usages of their images and get a job if money is what they're concerned about.

[Jurassic Weeb]

The only policy I can imagine for that is for people to provide credit and sources for all of their pictures. But what's the point? The issue barely ever comes up, and if someone really wants to find those images they can use a reverse image search. It's not RP posts from years ago stealing money from online artists. They should spend the time they use hunting down "unauthorized" usages of their images and get a job if money is what they're concerned about.

@Jove

My thoughts exactly. As long as someone isn't claiming credit for the image, or selling it for either real or virtual currency, and provides credit for the image, I don't see a problem. To make things safe, I personally ask artists if I can use their art for RPs (big shoutout to Hellraptor on dA for that, while I'm at it). However, if the artist says you can't use it you should be a good sport and not do it. Take the same policy Weird Al has for making parodies and apply it to RPs.

[BrokenPromise]

They are choosing to share their work in a very public place (imgur, tumbler, facebook, you get it) and shouldn't be surprised if said image is snagged by a roleplayer or whoever for personal use. I realize that doesn't help you, but it does make me wonder what is so harmful about having an image up on here. Do they not like the exposure? Would they be happier if we linked back to their blog or whatever? this "problem" would be easier to deal with if we knew exactly why they had a problem with their image appearing on a random RPG board.

It might also be worth investigating if these people even have a leg to stand on as far as their copy write claims go. From my understanding, most image boards basically have their own rights that they apply to an image when you decide to post your images to it.

So yea, I think first I'd like to know why artists find their images winding up on an RPG forum is damaging to them.

[datadogie]

I feel that legally, if someone comes on and does not feel comfortable with their image being used in a CS, then something needs to be done. Many of these cases can be different, with some artists being content with credit being given in the CS, whilst others would want a complete removal of the image. If the artist has the legal rights to make these claims, we do need to heed them, not only because of the legality but morally we need to understand that it is their work that they have taken in their lives to create, and we should respect their wishes as the creator.

I take it that the artists are creating accounts in order to make these complaints to the staff team, and as such, private messages should suffice for an artist and a member of this community to sort out their problem. If needed, a three-way PM conversation can be created so that there is a staff member overseeing the process (though not necessarily becoming involved); artists will most likely talk to the staff team before the individual user, so the staff member can maturely create a three-way PM and explain the situation, resulting in a calm outcome.

We should create a policy that allows a member of this community to negotiate, but ultimately have to heed the artist's wishes if they have the legal superiority, IE; copyright over their work. For example, a member could negotiate with the artist and add credit to the image, or perhaps exchange the image for a sample image (like with the artist's url watermarked), if the artist would accept that. We should also make sure to ask the artist if they do have the sufficient legal rights and proof to claim an image, as some artists may approach to claim a non-copyrighted image, for example.

If a member refuses to remove an image that has been claimed (with sufficient legal proof), the image should be removed regardless by the staff team, due to legal concerns. At that point, I'm unsure what would happen to the member, but we don't want the website to be taken down due to not obeying copyright, etc.

[Sierra]

It would make sense for art thievery to fall under the jurisdiction of plagiarism rules, since both are essentially forms of intellectual property appropriation. Without bringing the potential and complicated legal liabilities into it, I think there's a place to separate benign neglect from malice. A case of someone pulling the first result they're pleased with off google image results is one thing and mostly harmless (these people will usually comply with requests for attribution, etc.) is completely different from someone advertising work as their own when it clearly is not. The latter case is genuinely malicious and deserves to be dealt with harshly.

As for years-old content, two options exist: I see no harm in removing content from long-dead threads, however it raises an interesting question of how and why a person in question is finding the offending art in these threads. I won't assume malice without probable cause, but I find the pretense there not quite so black and white. Your other option is to deny removal requests on old content on the basis of it being dead and buried; a statute of limitations if you will. The biggest problem with denying removal requests on that ground is potential basis for sheltering copyright infringement and that's a sufficiently large issue in its own right.

So in regards to the first major query of having a policy or not, yes. That's a no-brainer that there should be some formal policy for something that's already come up three separate times. In regards to protections of artists vs members, copyright law somewhat binds you in that situation. You can only say no up until someone files a DMCA takedown request at which point your hands are tied or the site as a whole becomes liable. You can have a thorough process to weed out cases of the claimant not actually being the artist or otherwise acting purely out of malice, but at the end of the day if they want to be a dick about it, DMCA lets them do it.

In instances where the user on the site is responsive, the situation is most likely a lot easier ... or in a few rare cases much more problematic. Two cases exist: case one is where the artist in question has failed to reach out to the user in question prior to contacting staff. So long as the user is responsive, this is an easy case to solve with minimal mediation. The second case is problematic as the artist has reached out but was met with refusal on the user's end. Here you already have two parties in heated disagreement with legal ramifications on the line. Best of luck. My input is that most responsive users will be happily agreeable to attribution, using an artist's original source over a rehost, etc. They'll be less agreeable to an insistence on removal, but if you have an open line of communication, that's better than nothing.

[NuttsnBolts]

I believe there is a difference between using an image for a roleplay writing session, and stating that you are the one who created the image in the first place. A large portion of our userbase are not artist, and those who are are amongst the few (By artist I am referring to someone who can make an image that can be sold for at least a couple of dollars, not a signature cropper and banner maker).

With this said, there are two aspects that I have to anyone who claims their artwork may be stolen. Firstly, why did you upload it to the internet in the first place, and more importantly, why was it uploaded without a watermark. The internet is a haven for people hotlinking images and even the Troll face is a copyright listed image, yet I have not seen anyone sued for using that meme face.

Secondly, shouldn't someone be proud that an image was theirs was shared? You wouldn't see the same hate on Pinterest, you wouldn't see the same hate on Tumblr, so why a nobody writing forum? As I said, it's not being sold, it's not being claimed, the person is "admiring" the image enough to write a story about it, and their only mistake was maybe that they found the image on Google image search.

/shrugs

[Carlyle]

Frankly, one would think if they cared enough about other people using their artwork, they would've said something rather than years later after the image was used. They had uploaded the image to the public internet (likely on a site that thousands of people use daily such as deviantart and without a watermark), so I wouldn't be surprised that someone scooped up the image to use it for a roleplay.

That being said, I have found a number of artists that I personally have taken a liking too from people using their images. Some have been from this site, some have been from elsewhere. As Nutts put it:

Secondly, shouldn't someone be proud that an image was theirs was shared? You wouldn't see the same hate on Pinterest, you wouldn't see the same hate on Tumblr, so why a nobody writing forum? As I said, it's not being sold, it's not being claimed, the person is "admiring" the image enough to write a story about it, and their only mistake was maybe that they found the image on Google image search.

@NuttsnBolts

Personally, I struggle to see why someone would upload an image to the internet, most likely for exposure, and then complain about someone exposed to it for using it in a roleplay on a roleplay forum (especially if they didn't take the necessary precautions to protect their work before uploading it if it mattered that much), but yeah. Anyway, outside of any legality or copyright issue, and as long as they're not claiming it (or using it for commercial use e.g. selling the image), I don't see any issues with someone using the image.

[Little Bill]

+1 Opinion

In my experience on online forums, artists come to sites with that request because

A) A photograph they took, or of themselves, is being used
B) Art they're now selling is being used
C) Hyperlinks to a picture on their poorly-hosted site being used are making said site lag
D) They take credit issues too seriously

current policy seems fine tbh, if that happens to somebody and they really want to use that picture, they can just edit it a little. it's not like any lawyer in the world would take that to court.

[kittyluna45]

I think that if the artist goes and asks the person to remove it they have that right.

But to go searching for something is a few years old, like three years, it seems rather... odd. I understand being upset about finding your art, but it's not like many of us here are trying to take credit for the art as ours.

I agree with @NuttsnBolts, if it was my art being used, I might be a little proud. (I don't draw, just to be clear.)

The only policy I can imagine for that is for people to provide credit and sources for all of their pictures. But what's the point? The issue barely ever comes up, and if someone really wants to find those images they can use a reverse image search. It's not RP posts from years ago stealing money from online artists. They should spend the time they use hunting down "unauthorized" usages of their images and get a job if money is what they're concerned about.

@Jove

I think that there is a point to that.

[Sierra]

if that happens to somebody and they really want to use that picture, they can just edit it a little. it's not like any lawyer in the world would take that to court.

@DeadbeatWalking

Uhm ... fair use and derivative works licensing doesn't work like that and, if used specifically to get out from under a copyright claim, can get you in more legal trouble than you were in before. I have to urge against this strategy.

[kittyluna45]

current policy seems fine tbh, if that happens to somebody and they really want to use that picture, they can just edit it a little. it's not like any lawyer in the world would take that to court.

@DeadbeatWalking

Please don't ever do that. As @Sierra said, that is not now it works.

[Burning Kitty]

My opinion if I find it on deviantart, Google (image) search, pinterest, whatever it's 100% public domain. The artist has no right to say where it can or can't be viewed because they made it 100% public.

IMO that's no different than if I decided to whip out my junk in the middle of a public park and got angry that people looked at it.

[Burning Kitty]

C) Hyperlinks to a picture on their poorly-hosted site being used are making said site lag

@DeadbeatWalking

As long as the link is not surrounded by [img][/ img] there is no way for it cause lag on their site. A link by itself does nothing to their site because no traffic is actually going to their site until it is clicked on.

The [img][/ img] shouldn't be used ever or even an option.

[BrokenPromise]

@DeadbeatWalking alright, that makes sense.

So it sounds like sometimes the art doesn't even need to be taken down, and can simply be linked back to the artists crappy blog or whatever. I think that would be the ideal solution to this problem, but sometimes people will say no to this, and there isn't really a whole lot you can do about it. but three times in two years really isn't a lot. I'm guessing the reason why the original poster didn't respond to the artist because they were probably inactive.

[mickilennial]

This link maybe be useful to the conversation at large.

Ultimately, if an artist requests you take something down or link to the source, the courteous and respectful thing to do is comply. One should not be entitled to disrespect or escalate a situation when they are using works that are not their own. It is not hard to not be a dick.

[Chai]

I can see this.

The difference between Facebook/Pintrest/Instagram/Tumblr is that, when you share a post (reblog, repost, pin to a board, share the link on your profile, whatever) it usually directly links back to the artist. Saving a work of art and uploading it to some random forum isn't exactly proper exposure considering most people won't even check the artist's signature or research where it came from. You guys talk about it as if you're doing the artist a favor, but you're really not.

Some artists don't even like their artwork saved and uploaded to different Instagram accounts.

More than that, it may just be a matter of the artist feeling weird about their stuff on a roleplay forum. A quick browse through RPG will eventually lead to some poorly written roleplays or even the 1x1 section with 18+ tags and some people discussing sexual shit. Maybe they just don't want to be connected to a site that has content that makes them feel weird or uncomfortable.

What if that image was for a character they spent months to years creating, and they don't want someone else's shitty roleplay character attached to it?

Artists upload their artwork online mostly for proper exposure to land clients and jobs, not to be used by a random dude for his roleplay. What if the piece is a part of their online portfolio? I wouldn't want someone linking that important of artwork to a CS.

Maybe you think this is all selfish of them, but who cares? Respect their decision. Why are more than half the people here discussing whether it's right or wrong for artists to think that way, rather than just discussing what staff should do about it (which was the topic at hand, actually, not about why artists may have a problem with linking art to RP forums and what you think of it. Lol).

Just as YouTube removes videos with a copyrighted song at the artist's request, it's the staff's job to remove copyrighted material at the artist's request. Doesn't matter if you think it's unfair or stupid or that you can make it right by "linking it to their crappy blog." If they want it taken down, then just take it down. Respect for the art community, guys.

Just some two cents from the other side.

[Aitherus]

You want to know why artists get pissed off that you use their work without permission? Because we work hard on them and the amount of designing that went into it, and its completely unfair, not to mention RUDE and completely disrespectful to use it without permission. It takes a lack of COMMON DECENCY to do something like this.

The issue is not a simple as you using it, it’s about not getting permission and not giving them credit for doing so. Which a lot of of you do. Personally, when someone does to me, it makes me feel like you are STEALING my work....

[Aitherus]

I can see this.

The difference between Facebook/Pintrest/Instagram/Tumblr is that, when you share a post (reblog, repost, pin to a board, share the link on your profile, whatever) it usually directly links back to the artist. Saving a work of art and uploading it to some random forum isn't exactly proper exposure considering most people won't even check the artist's signature or research where it came from. You guys talk about it as if you're doing the artist a favor, but you're really not.

Some artists don't even like their artwork saved and uploaded to different Instagram accounts.

More than that, it may just be a matter of the artist feeling weird about their stuff on a roleplay forum. A quick browse through RPG will eventually lead to some poorly written roleplays or even the 1x1 section with 18+ tags and some people discussing sexual shit. Maybe they just don't want to be connected to a site that has content that makes them feel weird or uncomfortable.

What if that image was for a character they spent months to years creating, and they don't want someone else's shitty roleplay character attached to it?

Artists upload their artwork online mostly for proper exposure to land clients and jobs, not to be used by a random dude for his roleplay. What if the piece is a part of their online portfolio? I wouldn't want someone linking that important of artwork to a CS.

Maybe you think this is all selfish of them, but who cares? Respect their decision. Why are more than half the people here discussing whether it's right or wrong for artists to think that way, rather than just discussing what staff should do about it (which was the topic at hand, actually, not about why artists may have a problem with linking art to RP forums and what you think of it. Lol).

Just as YouTube removes videos with a copyrighted song at the artist's request, it's the staff's job to remove copyrighted material at the artist's request. Doesn't matter if you think it's unfair or stupid or that you can make it right by "linking it to their crappy blog." If they want it taken down, then just take it down. Respect for the art community, guys.

Just some two cents from the other side.

@Chai

Thank you for bringing that into perspective.

NO ONE who uses another persons art has ANY right to get mad when they are asked by the original artist, to take it down.

YOU DID NOT MAKE IT, YOU DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS TO IT.

[lait]

Just as YouTube removes videos with a copyrighted song at the artist's request, it's the staff's job to remove copyrighted material at the artist's request. Doesn't matter if you think it's unfair or stupid or that you can make it right by "linking it to their crappy blog." If they want it taken down, then just take it down. Respect for the art community, guys.

@Chai

THIS.
Just respect the art community. It's not that hard. If they don't want it up, just take it down.
I wouldn't ever want to see my artwork on a RP site. Especially if I'm trying to find a job that does background checks on social media. It sometimes will ruin people.

And no, because it's a "100% public" doesn't mean that it's there for you to use freely. There's Copyright laws and if they catch you using their work inappropriately for whatever reason, they can take legal action on you. It's much more complicated than you think.

If they artist says not to re-post their art, don't re-post it. If the artist says not to use their art on another website, don't use it. And I understand it's hard to keep track of that because people will remove tags or scratch off the artist signature, but if it comes down to it and an artist comes in and says they want it removed, I think it's common courtesy to have it taken down.

The Youtube scenario from Chai is like the perfect example.