AMTRAK locomotive livery

[keelhauled]

All those images are attached via URL, so clicking on them takes you back to the source. That enough? (Genuinely asking)

No.  Technically, you have to identify the creator, the title (if there is one), the original source, and the license used.  In practice, most people do exactly the same thing as you and don't provide any information, and I am almost certainly shouting into the wind, but for me at least it has been discouraging to see over the past five years or so as platforms for user-generated content multiply the value of the work seems to have been cheapened in the eyes of most people, and it is rare these days that the creator's work is ever acknowledged.

 

[Ryan]

It isn’t, if you read the license terms (which you’re required to share as well), it spells out precisely what you need to do. 

Actually, my picture was the closest to being used correctly. The picture of the 642 is watermarked, do you have any idea on the terms under which the photog allows use of the image?  The picture of the 42 has a railpictures.net watermark. They have a much more restrictive policy. 

 

[Ryan]

(Sorry, didn’t notice that there was a page 2, I wasn’t intending to dogpile on the already-answered question)

 

[Thirdrail7]

It isn’t, if you read the license terms (which you’re required to share as well), it spells out precisely what you need to do. 

Actually, my picture was the closest to being used correctly. The picture of the 642 is watermarked, do you have any idea on the terms under which the photog allows use of the image?  The picture of the 42 has a railpictures.net watermark. They have a much more restrictive policy.

(after reading the policy) Great Caesar's Ghost!!!!!  If these policies have been in effect for the last 15 years, I'm probably going to jail!

That being said, I'm remorseless.  I'm actually going to bypass everyone's pictures in order to find Ryan's pictures....then I'm posting them....everywhere.

MUUUUUUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

 

[PVD]

Intellectual property law is one of the major growth areas in corporate law in recent years. It is too easy in today's era of easy access to forget that IP is exactly that, property.  It can be bought, sold, licensed, or be in the public domain. A very large amount of material is "out there" where the rights owners are ok with non commercial re-use, but require either prior permission or attribution (or both). Not uncommon today is the reissue of old tv programs or movies where some of the music has to be changed because original licensing of songs may not have covered a use that did not exist at the time, and ownership of rights has changed hands for one of many reasons, and it may not be possible to secure an agreement in an economically feasible or timely manner. Watch a TV show (such as a courtroom show) and you will often see a brand name blanked out on clothing or on a device. We also see artists who object to the use of likenesses or music in association with that which they find objectionable. Violations of various aspects of IP laws, rules, and regulations, are extremely common, most are inadvertent, the result of lack of understanding, or knowledge, but commercial or profit making reuse can result in lawsuits, often of major proportions. The greatest majority of property owners have no problem with non commercial reuse, but retain the right for it to be on their terms, it is something we should all be more sensitive to. If I borrow something from a friend, be it ladder, OBD scanner, or anything for that matter, of course I wouldn't take it unless they told me it was ok, and I would say "thank you" when done. Why should IP be different?

 

[cpotisch]

All those images are attached via URL, so clicking on them takes you back to the source. That enough? (Genuinely asking)

No.  Technically, you have to identify the creator, the title (if there is one), the original source, and the license used.  In practice, most people do exactly the same thing as you and don't provide any information, and I am almost certainly shouting into the wind, but for me at least it has been discouraging to see over the past five years or so as platforms for user-generated content multiply the value of the work seems to have been cheapened in the eyes of most people, and it is rare these days that the creator's work is ever acknowledged.

OK, sorry about that. I definitely should have checked this stuff more closely, and will (obviously) make sure to get it right next time.

 

[railiner]

Yikes...I guess when I link a photo from some other site, I am in violation, too....I'll have to cease from that practice...

But is it okay to just put the link in?  And how to do it without the photo automatically appearing instead of the link, which sometimes, but not always happens?

 

[PVD]

The great catch is: "sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't" or the simple "it depends" That is part of the problem. If I put the football game on my TV and have friends over to watch, that's fine, if I charge admission or advertise that the game is on (like a bar might) I might owe a rights fee since the broadcast is licensed for "non commercial use" Not widely enforced but certainly real. I used to work in a skating rink. I could go to the store and by a popular record (remember those!) to play, if I played it at home, fine, but because we played it for an admission paying public, we paid for an ASCAP license to play music. Radio stations also pay royalties on the songs they play. On the other hand, there are certain things that are permitted under various provisions of laws covering "fair use" and public property. Most (not all)  people who are not looking to profit from their work are happy with an acknowledgement of their effort, and that is certainly not unfair.

 

[Ryan]

Yikes...I guess when I link a photo from some other site, I am in violation, too....I'll have to cease from that practice...

But is it okay to just put the link in?  And how to do it without the photo automatically appearing instead of the link, which sometimes, but not always happens?

It depends on the site and the terms under which it has been posted there.

The three pictures are actually an excellent example of this.  The picture from rrpictures.net is clearly out of bounds, since the license terms clearly state that the image can't be used without permission.  The Wikimedia picture is perfectly fine, as long as attribution is given - I post all of my rail (and plane, and other things of general interest) with a permissive license so that they can be out there and used for things exactly like this.  I have a decent number of pictures in various wikipedia articles, not because my pictures are anything special, but because I've taken care to make them in a way that allows them to be used.

The final image is the most interesting to discuss from an IP perspective - the photographer is clearly identified, and the question whether this is fair use is an interesting one - there is a four part test in 17 USC 107:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The picture here is non-commercial and probably doesn't impact the photographer's ability to sell the picture elsewhere.  There's a reasonable argument that using it here (with attribution, since it's baked into the image) can be considered fair use (absent the photographer showing up here and saying "I don't want you to do that").

 

[railiner]

I'm still not clear about this...if I only show the web link address in a post, and not the actual picture...is that still possibly a violation?   Should I just suggest anyone interested, to 'Google' the subject to get the link themself?    Sorry if I am not 'getting it'..... :unsure:

 

[JRR]

This is all way too complicated. I deal with it by only posting my own pictures. I suppose I should license only “non commercial” use!