On the Japanese site, there is some concern regarding the use of a photograph taken of a comic book. The question is located here.

I am actually the person who asked the question and took the photo. I considered asking the question without using the image, but felt that the image would help explain the situation better than I could in words. So, I assumed fair use and uploaded the two panels to imgur.com.

Some clarification about SE's stance on using such images would be appreciated.


1 Answer 1


IANAL, and I'm not affiliated with Stack Exchange (so, basically, I'm "some loud-mouthed guy on the Web"), but where exactly does SE enter into it? "I posted that guy's comics, so now it's your job to judge if it was okay or not, because, well, it's your server?" That doesn't make sense to me (maybe because IANAL?).

See also the legal thingy (which is linked on every page): "Subscriber (...) agrees that it will not contribute any Subscriber Content that (a) infringes, violates or otherwise interferes with any copyright or trademark of another party (...), (c) infringes any intellectual property right of another or the privacy or publicity rights of another (...)" - subscriber, that's you; it doesn't say "SE will police its users to see if they're breaking some law somewhere" - IMHO it says "users are supposed to be aware what they're doing".

The problem is, if SE started policing some stuff, they'd have to police the whole network, and possibly be liable for infringements. See a very similar discussion at Should moderators enforce NDAs for software vendors?

  • 2
    Similarly to this, if you come across content that shouldn't be on the site because it violates this, you should flag it as such. True we can't monitor every part of the network as moderators (nor the employees for that matter) but as a community we can monitor the entire network.
    – jcolebrand
    Commented Jun 10, 2011 at 20:08
  • @jcolebrand: Well, does it even violate anything? Honestly, I am not sure. Commented Jun 10, 2011 at 20:11
  • 2
    @Piskvor ~ Two topics. You're saying it should not violate, I'm saying "if you do find violating material" as like a PSA. Don't get sidetracked.
    – jcolebrand
    Commented Jun 10, 2011 at 20:18
  • 1
    @jcolebrand: You are right, I did get sidetracked there; my opinion on (non)violation is completely irrelevant. The problem, though, lies elsewhere: how do we, who 1) don't own the rights to the works and 2) didn't post them (and thus we aren't party to the dis/agreement between rights holder and the person publishing it), know that the material is, in fact, violating? We don't know. (btw which PSA is this?) Commented Jun 10, 2011 at 20:27
  • Thanks for sharing your answer. It's a perfectly reasonable one. I was sure I was well within my rights, but now I just don't know if I violated my agreement with SE: Is the image Subscriber Content? If the image is Subscriber Content, can SE license it under CC BY-SA 2.5? I just don't know. Commented Jun 10, 2011 at 20:53
  • 1
    @Piskvor en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_service_announcement
    – jcolebrand
    Commented Jun 10, 2011 at 21:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .