Do Not Post Copyrighted Pictures.

Tricia

Manager Websleuths.com
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
28,620
Reaction score
42,204
Please Do Not upload pictures of Magazine Covers. It is a copyright violation.

Because the People Magazine cover was posted on this thread Time Inc. is now demading 15 hundred dollars.

Please, I am begging, be very careful about copyrights.

You can link to a website that has the pictures legally but that is it.

Posting copyrighted pictures is just like putting a whole story in your post.
 
Please Do Not upload pictures of Magazine Covers. It is a copyright violation.

Because the People Magazine cover was posted on this thread Time Inc. is now demading 15 hundred dollars.

Please, I am begging, be very careful about copyrights.

You can link to a website that has the pictures legally but that is it.

Posting copyrighted pictures is just like putting a whole story in your post.

OUCH !!!!

I totally respect that....
 
I'm suddenly glad that I can't get pictures to post. I'm sorry Tricia, and I hope it's a scam or that, if it's not, that People will accept some heartfelt apologies.
(If they'll take it out in baked goods, I make a mean brownie.)
 
It doesn't matter who they are charging what or if it is a scam. We cannot post copies of magazine covers on the forum.
Not a new rule and it has been enforced as long as I have been here.

JBean I totally agree that nothing more then a link should be posted; That is a smart Policy.
On the bright side however I think that I read somewhere long ago that the Internet is a open free domain.
Without restrictions, it encompasses International users and we can not govern that.
WS will not have to pay that because It is not as if our opening page featured the people cover; big difference,
and We are not making a penny on it, we do not charge for a membership.
We do not misrepresent it as we do not change it, and give them credit that it is there article.
They would NOT win in court, BUT the cost of court VS the cost of 1.5K WHO NEEDS IT!...
It is nothing but a hassle. BUT WS IMO will not owe anything on this one.
 
I don't think it's a scam. I think Time Inc. hires this company to try and find copyright violations on the Internet. Then the owner of the site that has the copyright picture gets a letter from them.

Actually, they want 15 hundred for each time it was posted.

What I think the deal is, I hope anyway, is they send out this very strong message and then the sites will for certain take down the material. I hope anyway.

This is why I have Pre-Paid Legal my friends. It is a great thing to have. Actually, I'll be telling more about it later next week.

Thank you everyone. I love you guys.
Tricia
 
I never would have known this was on newstands unless I had seen it here. I was going to run out and get a copy first thing in the morning to read the entire 10 page story. All because someone posted about it here.
 
I never would have known this was on newstands unless I had seen it here. I was going to run out and get a copy first thing in the morning to read the entire 10 page story. All because someone posted about it here.
 
I never would have known this was on newstands unless I had seen it here. I was going to run out and get a copy first thing in the morning to read the entire 10 page story. All because someone posted about it here.

There ya go. They should pay you for advertising. ;)
 
Here's a few links re: fair use vs Copyright:

http://dennislhall.blogspot.com/2009/02/obama-poster-from-picture-fair-use.html

In this case it could be argued that the use of the cover was for non-profit, educational purposes. A counter argument could be made if, for example, you get ad revenue from banners.

http://www.dailyblogtips.com/copyright-law-12-dos-and-donts/

Here communicating the 'news' that People has an interview, using a copy of the cover is clearly fair use. And many of the Do's listed here are likely also applicable to the situation where someone posted a picture of the cover as it appeared on the People magazine site. However, modifications of the picture would be more difficult to defend.

http://thomashawk.com/2009/08/flickr-censors-political-image-critical-of-president-obama.html

Concerns about companies using 'Copyright infringement' as a ruse to silence 'free speech' and expression. Jury is still out here.

If Time, Inc makes a big deal about showing the cover photo, point out to them that you have documented evidence that x clicks were made to their website from this site, and per the going rates for banner ads you will be billing them an appropriate amount.

Point out to them that they regularly feature their cover in banner ads across the Internet - for example:

http://direct2time.timeinc.com/online/prop/people/

Also point out the negative publicity they started by making a big deal about this rather than simply sending a take-down notice, which would have been honored.
 
I am the guilty party...I posted the picture to compare it to the composites. I was under the impression that it was fair use and as long as I linked to the source it was not a copyright violation. Please accept my apologies Tricia. If a T/O is in order then by all means send me to my corner. I am deeply sorry for causing trouble for you.
 
If Time, Inc makes a big deal about showing the cover photo, point out to them that you have documented evidence that x clicks were made to their website from this site, and per the going rates for banner ads you will be billing them an appropriate amount.

I like the way you think! :)
 
I never would have known this was on newstands unless I had seen it here. I was going to run out and get a copy first thing in the morning to read the entire 10 page story. All because someone posted about it here.

please wait till friday to go and buy it lol
its not on sale till then ;0)
this stinks about the copyright but oh well. i have the today article on faves........
 
This is a test:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/JayceeLeeDugard

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20312090,00.html

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2009/news/091026/jaycee-dugard.jpg

I'm pretty sure all of these are legitimate, that Time can't do or say anything about. Posting an image from their site, linking to the article they reference:

{a href="http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20312090,00.html"}{img src="http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2009/news/091026/jaycee-dugard.jpg"} {/img}{/a}

would also be legitimate, but I don't want to push it.
 
I am the guilty party...I posted the picture to compare it to the composites. I was under the impression that it was fair use and as long as I linked to the source it was not a copyright violation. Please accept my apologies Tricia. If a T/O is in order then by all means send me to my corner. I am deeply sorry for causing trouble for you.

If not you it would have just been someone else here. :angel:
 
I am the guilty party...I posted the picture to compare it to the composites. I was under the impression that it was fair use and as long as I linked to the source it was not a copyright violation. Please accept my apologies Tricia. If a T/O is in order then by all means send me to my corner. I am deeply sorry for causing trouble for you.

:blowkiss: Please don't TO Momtective Tricia ... We need her right now :)
 
Just wanted to say that I saw the featured picture,at work today on MSN news,BEFORE I went lurking on Websleuths.{can only lurk at work}
 
I am the guilty party...I posted the picture to compare it to the composites. I was under the impression that it was fair use and as long as I linked to the source it was not a copyright violation. Please accept my apologies Tricia. If a T/O is in order then by all means send me to my corner. I am deeply sorry for causing trouble for you.

As soon as you cough up $1,500, all is forgiven.

Just kidding.

I'm positive the pre-paid lawyers can handle this. They're there for a reason. Right? My company's corporate laywer has form letters for this kind of thing. (Companies like this will bluster and hope you'll stroke them a check.) Try not to sweat it. That goes for the MODs, too.
 
This is a test:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/JayceeLeeDugard

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20312090,00.html

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2009/news/091026/jaycee-dugard.jpg

I'm pretty sure all of these are legitimate, that Time can't do or say anything about. Posting an image from their site, linking to the article they reference:

{a href="http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20312090,00.html"}{img src="http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2009/news/091026/jaycee-dugard.jpg"} {/img}{/a}

would also be legitimate, but I don't want to push it.
Linking is appropriate. Takes you to the source.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
64
Guests online
2,498
Total visitors
2,562

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,916
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top