1

When you try to upload an image it says

User contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required (content policy)

My proposal would be to change it to something more along the lines

Reminder: By publishing an image you will be publishing it under a cc by-sa 3.0 license. If you are not the copyright holder of the image, please ensure you have the legal right to publish the image under a cc by-sa 3.0 license.

Yes, it's long, yes it's boring and yes, someone will be able to think of something better, but can we please include some type of reminder that you (or even moderators) can't just publish images you don't own and which haven't been published under a compatible license (even if you give credit).

Just to be clear, I DO NOT expect a small change in text to affect the large majority of users. I do expect however that a very small percentage of users will at some point notice (especially active users) and that they can do their part helping others not break the law. It's more a case of "raising awareness" than "solving the issue".

(Most likely I got at least a couple of those wrong (collected them in just a couple of minutes) and although I reverse googled some of them (to check their license) it is always hard to figure out who owns what... which is exactly why we need to be more careful when we post stuff.)

  • 6
    Let's be honest: do you think that extra reminder will do anything at all? How many people will even read it? – fbueckert Apr 29 at 16:32
  • 4
    I think the "normal" procedure is to file a DMCA take down request if you've found copyrighted material you own. Agree on the awareness, not sure if more text helps. – rene Apr 29 at 16:33
  • 3
    I think users have enough to do to add policing image ownership to the pile. That onus correctly belongs to the image owner. – fbueckert Apr 29 at 16:44
  • 1
    Maybe not all SE users are aware that laws and legal stuff do apply to online stuff. This internet thing changed a bit since 1990 ... not everything goes anymore ... – rene Apr 29 at 16:46
  • 4
    And just now I re-read all the legal agreements I'm in on this site. I'm a criminal ... – rene Apr 29 at 16:59
  • 2
    @rene Well, considering the feature request has been edited to include the policing as part of it... After more thought, I could be on board with a text change; minimal effort required, might result in a bit more awareness. I'm definitely not on board by making it curators' problem, instead of the image owner's. – fbueckert Apr 29 at 17:39
  • 2
    @fbueckert I agree there. The policing part has to be edited out IMO. Because before we know it the reviewers are to blame for not removing pirated images. Headline: Stack Exchange First Post Reviewer in custody for missing a copyrighted image during review. Jail sentence expected. – rene Apr 29 at 17:45
  • 1
    @fbueckert: all I meant is messages in the sense of "hey, even if you include attribution that doesn't mean you can post it here" just like many of us write comments like "please don't use salutations in your post" and then explain why. If we can spend our time caring about salutations then a bit of effort to help others not break the law seems kind of nice imho. – David Mulder Apr 29 at 19:12
  • 1
    The damage is already done once they upload the pic; you'd have to get SE to redact the post history from the time it was uploaded, to the time it was removed, to comply fully; otherwise, it's still available from post history. Asking curators to remind others not to do that is going to be a waste of time, I feel. If you want to limit your request to just additional wording...I might be able to get behind that. Asking curators to do more work than the image owner is going to be a major non-starter for me. – fbueckert Apr 29 at 19:14
  • 4
    I disagree. In this world of sharing, how is anyone supposed to figure out the license to a picture? The uploader knows where they got it from. Once it gets here, that link is broken; you're asking curators to put in the heavy lifting to figure out where it came from, confirm it's the original, and not someone else who copied it, and then check the license on it. That's very unreasonable. This is why the DMCA exists; so rightsholders can assert those rights. That's part of their job, not random people on the internet. – fbueckert Apr 29 at 19:28
  • 1
    @fbueckert It's part of the rights of a rightholder, absolutely not part of the job. A photographer should just be able to sell their photos and it shouldn't be their job to scourge the internet and sue everybody who infringes on their rights. Of course it's often a necessity in todays world as there is a ton of assholes out there, but the default should be that nobody breaks the law. And anything that we can do to get closer to that default so that copyright holders don't suffer is a good step. And in a lot of cases we do know that an image was published under CC without (cont.) – David Mulder Apr 29 at 19:41
  • 1
    permission (when the author of the post clearly gives attribution and the site in question has a clear copyright policy). Of course, this entire network is a community effort, but considering how much care we give to small inconsequential stuff (which is good) a bit of care about stuff that actually matters would help a lot. And those who don't want to don't have to. – David Mulder Apr 29 at 19:41
  • 1
    I'm going to disagree very strongly. This is the internet. If you upload your work, policing it comes with the territory. That's the cost of doing business, and it's disingenuous to push it off onto others to do it for you, unpaid. How is anyone not the rightsholder ever supposed to figure out who the author is? Think about the scenario; there's no central database recording that info; you say it's reasonable for others to spend inordinate amounts of time trying to dig to figure that out? And, maybe, get it wrong? The only one who knows is the rightsholder. Ergo, their job. – fbueckert Apr 29 at 19:44
  • 1
    Again, no issue with updating wording. That can help. But that'd be the limit of my support. It'd be nice if uploaders checked licenses prior to uploading, to minimize the amount of infringement, but if a picture gets uploaded anyways, we assume good faith and continue. The DMCA exists for this very reason; so the rightsholder can assert those very rights. It's incredibly unreasonable to expect others to enforce someone's rights, no matter how the rightsholder feels about it. – fbueckert Apr 29 at 19:53
  • 1
    @Tschallacka Yeah, the "upload filter" as the EU requires will definitely help a lot on this count and is a far better solution than the text-change I was proposing. Still we will have to wait two years before that will get implemented. – David Mulder Apr 30 at 12:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .