Credits!?!

[Andrew March]

Precisely, not only that but the minute you change the credit rule to 'strongly suggested' you'll find a lot more people trying to palm off other people's work as their own.

Remove the images, send a polite PM asking them to add credits, job done, move on.

[Spry]

Originally Posted by Andrew March

Precisely, not only that but the minute you change the credit rule to 'strongly suggested' you'll find a lot more people trying to palm off other people's work as their own.

Remove the images, send a polite PM asking them to add credits, job done, move on.

You're right. We do send the people PM's and then give them adequate time to make the changes. We're all well on top of it, which is why we don't need the security forum littered with reported posts about images that haven't been credited.

[Andrew March]

No disrespect Spry, but how long do you give people to add credits?

Two threads are 8 days and 10 days old respectively, I don't have a problem if the rules need changing, but if they're going to be blatantly ignored what's the point.

[Glazy]

The thing about credits and people taking other peoples work and either flogging it online or passing it off as their own, is anyone with moderate Photoshop skills could remove most credits in a few minutes anyway unless it's splashed right across the middle of the picture. If people are going to do that they're going to do it credits or not.
I see it as if it's all your own work no problem, if you're using someone elses meshes then they're the one who get credit !

[Guerrilla]

Very true. But it's still better than a total free-for-all, right? I mean, you could make an image completely unstealable (or undesirable rather) with a sufficiently tricky (and large) water mark, but since we're all suckers for pretty pictures around here, something less intrusive is in order. No one's claiming it's fool-proof, but at least it's something.

Besides, nothing exposes image theft better than a properly credited image that predates the chopped pic.

Personally, I don't think it's that huge a deal. Credits make sense, but I won't hold not crediting against anyone personally as long as no one's stealing. The current rule is:
[Link]

Credits must be on images. We enforce this rule for 2 reasons: 1. To give any artist their due who may have created content which you use in your picture. 2. If you create something and it has your name on it, there is a smaller chance of someone deciding to take that image and use it elsewhere for their own purposes. Please cooperate on this as its for the benefit of everyone.

So until we change it, I'd say everyone just credit their pics and we'll all be happier.

[CAClark]

Credits actualy dont make any difference. If someone want's your work, they will have it, and credits ar eeasy to edit off an image. If you are terrified of your work getting ripped off, you shouldn't be slapping it up on the interweb, and while I don't claim that it is ok for people to rip off others work, it WILL happen.

Cheers!

[Andrew March]

I agree with you Craig, what I'm trying to say is what's the point in having the credit policy the way it is when people ignore it, including staff.

I wrote the amended credit rules for another forum sometime ago and to be honest I think the SFM credit regs need looking at, it's not my call though.

[traq]

Everyone's missing the "less obvious" point Guerrilla made, which is *protecting SFM*. It's a minor and seemingly insignificant step, but it does make the legal difference between whether SFM can be held partly responsible for any copyright infringement or if the problem would rest solely on the perpetrator's shoulders.

If someone steals an artist's work, publishes it here, and we blindly accept that he doesn't need credits because he says it's all his own work, then we could be considered accessories. Who cares, you ask? Publishing something and letting it sit around awhile without being challenged is a great way to establish a copyright. If we do ask, and the guy says, "yeah, it's all mine," then when the lawsuit comes around SFM can just say "He lied to us, too" and we won't be in the middle of the battle anymore.

Why do people we all know and trust need to post credits too? because a rule has to apply to everyone or it doesn't work at all.

just my two cents

[Justin]

1) Credits are mandatory IF your work includes anyone else' work (mesh, backgrounds, etc., which must be used with permission).

2) Credits are optional if the work is 100% your own.

3) Credits are like DRM: They don't stop piracy. They might slow it down the teeniest tiniest bit, but otherwise you're just fooling yourself as even large watermarks can be removed in a few seconds or minutes depending on type with today's Photoshop features.

4) SFM doesn't need protecting by adding credits to images because the gallery is (under the law) considered the same way as this forum is. Members can post via this form without harming SFM in the same way you can post photos up at Facebook, Myspace, or Live Spaces without harming those companies. SFM is indemnified against legal action, so long as SFM follows a few rules, because SFM is considered an Online Service Provider (OSP). That said, SFM is obligated to remove such images if the legitimate copyright holder asks SFM to remove it via a properly executed takedown letter sent to SFM's designated agent under the OCILLA portion of the DMC Act (affectionately loved by all as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act); part of Copyright law in the United States Code Title 17. The legal steps require exact execution, which many takedown notices lack, but regardless most OSPs comply immediately without due diligence on the takedown letter (as they are probably wise to do so). So long as the OSP complies, the OSP (SFM) is protected and needn't worry about policing content proactively.

Of course, if the takedown notice isn't legit, a counter-notice will get that material right back up after a 10-14 business day waiting period in which the alleged copyright holder submitting the takedown notice has to file an actual lawsuit and notify the OSP of the filing. No filing? then SFM is clear to legally put it back up.

The only catch is the SFM must not knowingly permit copyright infringed material to be 'published' on its website here. But if SFM doesn't know, then SFM remains in the clear pretty much no matter what so long as it complies with the OCILLA law when it receives the takedown notice. SFM does have a designated agent registered with the US Copyright Office, right? Good, good, good.. nothing to worry about then. This is why OSPs take stuff down immediately and then sort out the legitimacy of the copyright holder's claim later (if at all), because DMCA is a bit convoluted and if you take something down upon request you don't have to be an expert in the law to stay protected in this area.


So, um, in summary, feel free to post without any credits---so long as the work is YOURS!

[Comco]

The staff are currently discussing this matter and a final judgement will be made and announced soon. Please don't take anything written above as gospel yet.

In the mean time, we are keeping an eye on this thread. If you have anything further you'd like to add or bring up for discussion, please go ahead.