Define "Copyrighted" material

[JumpMyBones]

Will someone -- preferably a Lit Mod -- please explain to me exactly what Literotica defines as "copyrighted" material?

Excluding the Amateur Pics threads, I would guess that 95% or more of the images on Literotica do not belong to the people who posted them. Many of them came from such places as Playboy, the Victoria's Secret catalogs (online and in print), or other online magazines or blogs. Aren't these pics copyrighted on those sites? What makes it possible -- and legal -- for us to "steal" them from those sites and post them here?

Is a pic not copyrighted if it doesn't have a copyright stamp in it?

What if it has the original web address in the corner?

What if I use my cropping feature in Paint or Photobucket or Tumblr to remove the copyright and/or web address information before I post it?

I don't get it.

 

[Liar]

Technically, everything anyone creates originally is copyright protected unless the creator says it's not, or it's too old (50 years after the creator is dead, or something like that). So yeah, if you link to a picture that is not yours without permission, it's copyright infrignment, unless you're a journalist or satirist and can claim fair use.

However, everyone does it on the Internet, and it's by and large much more benificial than not. Imagine Tumblr or even Facebook without random pics found on the net. And although it might be illegal, it's akin to jaywalking or driving 1 mph over the speed limit. Unless you try and make money off it or claim it's yours, nobody really cares.

 

[lovetoread]

It doesn't make it legal just because everyone does it.

Ask anyone who uses celebrity images who's gotten the C&D notices.

I know that technically, Pinterest and Tumblr require you to only post your own images and if you are busted, they are not responsible.

I also know there are a few blog owners who have been sued for monetary comp for using pics found in a google search.

Cropping the watermark off does not make it less illegal.

 

[oggbashan]

The rules/laws on copyright vary by country, and how each country has interpreted international agreements.

In the UK, and most of Europe, anything you write or create is copyright as soon as you have written or created it, and, in theory, is protected without you having to assert that right.

In the US you have to register your work as copyright and pay a fee. If you are not US-based that can be expensive, so if like me, you are in the UK or Europe, we have to accept that our work is not copyright-protected in the US. The USA has a long history of not accepting that copyright in other countries applies in the US - Dickens, Kipling, Gilbert and Sullivan all lost significant sums because of piracy in the US that would have been illegal in the UK.

In many countries copyright is completely ignored. The illegal copying of movies is a major industry in parts of Eastern Europe and East Asia. Any of your work could be copied in those places and you have no redress.

But in practice it doesn't matter where you live, what the copyright laws are. Unless you can afford to throw money at expensive lawyers with a very low chance of getting anything back, you cannot defend your copyright successfully anywhere. You would have a better chance of return with a three-legged horse in a Kentucky Derby.

When we post a story on Literotica we grant the owners a non-exclusive right to use our copyrighted work. That means we can still post the story elsewhere. Literotica adds a copyright symbol to show that it is a copyrighted work - but that is meaningless in the US unless you have registered your copyright IN the US and paid the fee. But why would you? Any work posted anywhere on the internet could be copied and pasted everywhere.

My stories appear on some peculiar sites. I don't write about Anal-fisting Japanese Teenagers, but some of my stories appear on a site listed for that, and on other bot-infested locations. Why? I don't know. But there is no point in me chasing the site owners, even if I could find them. They will just locate to another site and start again.

To conclude: It isn't fair, but if you are a writer or artist and you post your work on the internet, you are giving it away.

 

[Liar]

It doesn't make it legal just because everyone does it.

Ask anyone who uses celebrity images who's gotten the C&D notices.

I know that technically, Pinterest and Tumblr require you to only post your own images and if you are busted, they are not responsible.

I also know there are a few blog owners who have been sued for monetary comp for using pics found in a google search.

Cropping the watermark off does not make it less illegal.

All true. Like I said, do it commersially and you can expect to hear from lawyers. Do it non commersially and you still might, some copyright owners are more vigilant than others. Two that are said to be especielly onerous are Disney and Nintendo. But most of the time you're not interresting enough to have the law enforced on you. Just look at any thread here, and see how many AVs and sig pics are illegal.

 

[Mike_Yates]

Will someone -- preferably a Lit Mod -- please explain to me exactly what Literotica defines as "copyrighted" material?

Excluding the Amateur Pics threads, I would guess that 95% or more of the images on Literotica do not belong to the people who posted them. Many of them came from such places as Playboy, the Victoria's Secret catalogs (online and in print), or other online magazines or blogs. Aren't these pics copyrighted on those sites? What makes it possible -- and legal -- for us to "steal" them from those sites and post them here?

Is a pic not copyrighted if it doesn't have a copyright stamp in it?

What if it has the original web address in the corner?

What if I use my cropping feature in Paint or Photobucket or Tumblr to remove the copyright and/or web address information before I post it?

I don't get it.

Under the SOPA (stop online piracy act) which failed to pass into law a few years ago, merely saving/possessing a copyrighted photo on your computer (or posting them onto a forum) would be a major felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison for each infraction.

Not only that, but the website in which the copyrighted photo is posted on would be forcibly taken down by the federal government and the owners of that site would also be subject to criminal prosecution.

SOPA was a failed and appallingly desperate attempt by the greedy and corrupt entertainment industry (under pressure by their shareholders) to protect their profits and market share from online film and music piracy.

If every single person who commits online copyright infringement was to be prosecuted, literally hundreds of millions of people would have to be jailed, which is impossible.

However, there is plenty more draconian copyright legislation in the works like ACTA, and TPP, and is being introduced to congress/senate on the behalf of various corporations and the entertainment industry.

 

[JumpMyBones]

I have contemplated this subject for a long time. (I was on Lit 3 years ago and other story writing/pic posting sites in between. So this isn't my first time wrestling with this issue.)

But I asked the question at this particular time for a specific reason. A few days ago, I found a thread in here that was specifically about celebrities. Almost every other post was deleted by a moderator and replaced with the warning about copyright infringement and getting your account deleted.

Why then? If almost all of the pics on Lit are copyrighted by someone other than those who posted them, why would the Moderators specifically target a thread about celebrities?

Don't get me wrong: I'm not complaining about the Moderators! They are a vital part of Lit, and if they weren't here to control the assholes, I wouldn't be here either. It would become just another Yahoo, with a million assholes acting like dicks simply because there was no one there to moderate them.

My point is: why then and why not always? I certainly don't want to get my account or threads or even individual posts deleted for copyright infringement; but without a clear understanding of what Lit is cutting out, I don't know how to proceed.

Here are two examples of what I am concerned about.

• The first pic is the original picture I downloaded from the internet.
• Now, I would say that the pic is copyrighted because, duh, it contains a copyright mark. But I found it in the public domain of the internet. I didn't take it from its owner. All I did was search for "sexy brunettes", and there it was.
• It's all over the internet and, by now, any hope of the owner maintaining control over and making money off of it is lost.
• So, is it illegal to repost it? Improper? Unadvisable?
• The second pic doesn't contain the copyright information, cropped out by a ghost. (It wasn't me, of course, as that would be tantamount to admitting having committed the crime of theft.)
• In this condition, is it any less protected than the already unprotected version that bears the copyright mark?

I'm not trying to sound difficult, and I'm certainly not a Troll trying to cause mayhem with this thread.

I simply don't understand.

 

[oggbashan]

...
But I asked the question at this particular time for a specific reason. A few days ago, I found a thread in here that was specifically about celebrities. Almost every other post was deleted by a moderator and replaced with the warning about copyright infringement and getting your account deleted.

Why then? If almost all of the pics on Lit are copyrighted by someone other than those who posted them, why would the Moderators specifically target a thread about celebrities?

Don't get me wrong: I'm not complaining about the Moderators! They are a vital part of Lit, and if they weren't here to control the assholes, I wouldn't be here either. It would become just another Yahoo, with a million assholes acting like dicks simply because there was no one there to moderate them.

My point is: why then and why not always? I certainly don't want to get my account or threads or even individual posts deleted for copyright infringement; but without a clear understanding of what Lit is cutting out, I don't know how to proceed.

Here are two examples of what I am concerned about.

• The first pic is the original picture I downloaded from the internet.
• Now, I would say that the pic is copyrighted because, duh, it contains a copyright mark. But I found it in the public domain of the internet. I didn't take it from its owner. All I did was search for "sexy brunettes", and there it was.
• It's all over the internet and, by now, any hope of the owner maintaining control over and making money off of it is lost.
• So, is it illegal to repost it? Improper? Unadvisable?
• The second pic doesn't contain the copyright information, cropped out by a ghost. (It wasn't me, of course, as that would be tantamount to admitting having committed the crime of theft.)
• In this condition, is it any less protected than the already unprotected version that bears the copyright mark?

I'm not trying to sound difficult, and I'm certainly not a Troll trying to cause mayhem with this thread.

I simply don't understand.

IF moderators are acting in accordance with the defined parameters of Literotica, they should delete any picture that contains a copyright mark or a link to the site that originally posted it.

If a picture has no such mark, unless you, the poster, took it yourself, you are breaching the owner's copyright.

You shouldn't copy it, nor re-post it. Just because that is done millions of times a day doesn't make it legal, nor moral.

My copyrighted stories appear on hundreds of places that I haven't posted to. Often they appear with my copyright message. Each re-posting is technically illegal, but it would be a civil law suit to pursue it, not a criminal one.

Why would I engage lawyers? I posted the stories here for anyone to read - free. I have suffered no financial loss if someone copies them. But if I were Disney and one of my expensive productions had been copied - the loss could be considerable and lawyers would be alerted.

 

[islandman]

IF moderators are acting in accordance with the defined parameters of Literotica, they should delete any picture that contains a copyright mark or a link to the site that originally posted it.

If a picture has no such mark, unless you, the poster, took it yourself, you are breaching the owner's copyright.

You shouldn't copy it, nor re-post it. Just because that is done millions of times a day doesn't make it legal, nor moral.

My copyrighted stories appear on hundreds of places that I haven't posted to. Often they appear with my copyright message. Each re-posting is technically illegal, but it would be a civil law suit to pursue it, not a criminal one.

Why would I engage lawyers? I posted the stories here for anyone to read - free. I have suffered no financial loss if someone copies them. But if I were Disney and one of my expensive productions had been copied - the loss could be considerable and lawyers would be alerted.

What if one of your stories found its way into a collection available on Amazon under someone else's name and available for $3.99 as an eBook?

 

[bronzeage]

What if one of your stories found its way into a collection available on Amazon under someone else's name and available for $3.99 as an eBook?

You might get an injunction to stop sales, but the chances of getting any money are slim.

 

[Byron In Exile]

In the UK, and most of Europe, anything you write or create is copyright as soon as you have written or created it, and, in theory, is protected without you having to assert that right.

It is the same in the United States.

In the US you have to register your work as copyright and pay a fee. If you are not US-based that can be expensive, so if like me, you are in the UK or Europe, we have to accept that our work is not copyright-protected in the US. The USA has a long history of not accepting that copyright in other countries applies in the US

From www.copyright.gov —

Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Q: Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

Q: Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?
Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within 5 years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration” and Circular 38b, Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), on non-U.S. works.

Q:Is my copyright good in other countries?
The United States has copyright relations with most countries throughout the world, and as a result of these agreements, we honor each other's citizens' copyrights. However, the United States does not have such copyright relationships with every country. For a listing of countries and the nature of their copyright relations with the United States, see Circular 38a, International Copyright Relations of the United States.

 

[JumpMyBones]

Sorry, folks. I didn't make myself very clear. I wasn't looking for the legalities behind copyright: I was looking for an answer from the Moderators about why they delete some posts and allow others.

You can continue to post and post about copyright law if you wish -- totally your call -- but that isn't what I'm after. I'm looking for a Mod to explain as I've asked above.

Thanks, though.

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

who cares? you're not stealing right Lol

 

[lovetoread]

Uh why are you asking questions to Mods when there are no Mods on here?

 

[islandman]

Uh why are you asking questions to Mods when there are no Mods on here?

Laurel is usually here, no?

Though I've been sending her sexy PMs for the past week now and no response as of yet. Perhaps she's on vacation.

 

[pointless]

Technically, everything anyone creates originally is copyright protected unless the creator says it's not, or it's too old (50 years after the creator is dead, or something like that). So yeah, if you link to a picture that is not yours without permission, it's copyright infrignment, unless you're a journalist or satirist and can claim fair use.

However, everyone does it on the Internet, and it's by and large much more benificial than not. Imagine Tumblr or even Facebook without random pics found on the net. And although it might be illegal, it's akin to jaywalking or driving 1 mph over the speed limit. Unless you try and make money off it or claim it's yours, nobody really cares.

i just wanna know how exactly one makes money jaywalking.

 

[lovetoread]

She is an owner, not a Mod.

She doesn't actually have much to do with the Modding, as we found out with the great PG/GB war of 2013.

 

[pointless]

She is an owner, not a Mod.

She doesn't actually have much to do with the Modding, as we found out with the great PG/GB war of 2013.

so all the spam threads and rule violating posts magically delete themselves?

 

[lovetoread]

so all the spam threads and rule violating posts magically delete themselves?

I secretly believe she lets Manu out long enough to do the cleaning, then he gets put back in the cage.

 

[pointless]

manu is a myth. he's like the hindu adam only a bit more dickish.

 

[lovetoread]

No! Manu is real!

 

[pointless]

also, the hindu noah. you know, reincarnation and what not.

 

[pointless]

No! Manu is real!

of course he is, dear. just like the easter bunny and the period fairy.

 

[Saint Peter]

The fucker only has 715 posts since 1999.


What a slacker.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Short of mods jumping in, I have had experience in the practical, legal and corporate side of this subject. I was working for a short while in Chicago in the contracts side of a Merchant Bank's involvement with producers engaged to ICM (Celebrity Management). But not only that I have been inside several pretty major corporate ventures to do with commercialisation of artists' and inventors' rights.

If you want to have a really really really good guideline for how to deal with any particular instance of Copyright or potential infringement, you should - and especially if you're another writer/artist to beging with(!) - always consider the other person's ability and right to earn actual money from their work.

And this means, as far as say pictures go, if you are looking at a screen shot from a commercial advertisement - is whatever you want to do with the image going to step on the intention of the original producers of that image? Is it going to change in a bad way, the advertising spin, for instance? There is a concept at law, of certain artistic things 'being branded' or 'brandable,' and that is something also to take into account. Yes this is a very grey area... Or are you merely pointing to the image and then being prepared to attribute and link to, and so on?

Damaging the person's money-making intention is one very important consideration.

But, USING their work MAY/MIGHT still be okay if you are not going to be seen to be TAKING AWAY from their own market...

At the end of the day, these are the things that end up being argued over in courts, and at the end of the day, these are the only types of things that will actually matter as far as actual judgements go. In my experience.

Now that doesn't mean that people (moderators) cannot or will not still dispute with you or block what you're doing; they can, they might, they are entitled to...

But (the principle behind) what goes into 'fair use' is basically that you are not trampling on people's DIRECT money-earning capacity. Copyright means ownership, but not unconditional ownership ONCE YOU TRY TO MAKE MONEY FROM SOMETHING. OR, importantly, once SOMEONE tries to make money from it. If your product is not branded, you cannot stop someone from altering your idea slightly and taking it for their own use. You will still have 'your' original version; but they will have 'theirs.'

In some countries nowadays, the term 'producer's rights' are the relevant thing, not 'just' Copyright. And that doesn't alter the meaning or importance of Copyright, but what it does is create a practical dimension about the actual financial side of things as opposed to the theoretical financial side.

Someone could have Copyright, and yet never make any money and even arrange things so as never to be able to make any money. This is not accepted in the spirit of the Law even though people would like to suggest that Copyright means unconditional ownership. It doesn't mean that; it means protected ownership SO AS IT MAY BE COMMERCIALLY EXPLOITED AND EVENTUALLY TAX IS PAID AND ECONOMIC VALUE GENERATED TO THE NATION/STATE/SOVEREIGN STATE.

My own position - and it should not be regarded as what everybody else cares to do or to believe - is that you do can anything with anyone's artistic 'work' as long as you are prepared to stop if they request you to, or to pay them a percentage if you make money using it. I don't think asking permission beforehand has ever been held by any court to be the key factor in any Copyright case at the end of the day. The 'right' is the right to (actually, not theoretically) earn money, and to direct the 'spin' (i.e. artistic direction) of the actual work, if you are the actual creator.

So if you have written a book, and you fuck around and do an indie film of it, and then some professional comes along and makes an up-to-the-minute modern quality film of it, you will die if you try to assert 'your rights...!' I guarantee you this is correct. GUARANTEE. Don't argue with me about this unless you are prepared to put your belief into practice and lose your shirt over it!!! Trust me on this one; you'll save yourself a lot of pain and grief and money.

Some photographs or pictures or images clearly come from someone or some group who intend and are making a concerted effort and maybe are, making money from the exposition of those images themselves. An example would be people who set up a website specifically offering to mail you high quality prints or downloadable high resolution digital images they produce. You should not just take these sorts of works, because you could be held to be falling foul of the 'passing off ' law.

Now it would seem, from this kind of interpretation of Copyright Law, that there are limited ways for un-signed artists to enforce royalties on their yet to be commercialised (although maybe nevertheless published) work - but this is failing to understand that there is often a long time gap between creation of the finalised work, and the point of commercialisation.

Artists and writers need to understand that crucial to their existence, is the medium/mediums (technical channels of exposition) that exist in the era they are situated in, and what is the value chain involved.

Printed scrolls - ancient history; printed bound books - the Koran era (note the captive audience aspect); digital print and e-anything - the lifestyle aspect.

A book or a picture or an image will not be commercialisable unless it (whichever thing) is integrated into the way people spend money in their ordinary daily lives.